patrick.net

hanera says

What is the definition of a minimum wage?

Poverty.

mmmarvel says

Analyzer says

The president is pushing to raise the minimum wage, this should help the
housing affordability.

Seriously????

Serious sarcasm........................

Dan8267 says

The only conclusion one can reasonable reach from the overwhelming historical record is that capitalism is unstable and immediately deteriorates into Americanism upon the creation of corporations. This means that you can never sustain capitalism if any corporations exist in the economic system. Try running a modern, global economy without corporations. Capitalism, by your definition, died as a result of not being able to scale to national, nonetheless, global trade.

There is a historical pattern of prosperous and liberal (in the Classical Liberal sense, not the anti-liberty statism since FDR era) societies gradually morphing into statist nightmares over a few generations. The dynamics and "reason" have a lot to do with surplus enabling parents sending their kids to schools instead of work with the hope that the kids would then gain knowledge faster and have a leg up on their peers. Inevitably, what get taught in the schools become detached from reality of the working world, and the younger generation grown up in prosperity get all sorts of wacky ideas that eventually wreck the society. Often due to their lack of real life working experience having to seek the voluntary consent and cooperation of others, those privileged kids grow up to model themselves after their teachers in the academia, hell-bent on controlling the rest of the society instead. The result is of course societal conflict and inefficiency.

Both Corporations and Global Trade were highly developed long before the 19th century. Corporations were in ancient Roman laws. Global Trade system was well developed at least by the 16th century (1500's): the Spanish Dollar (minted from silver found in Mexico) was the original basis for the US Dollar as well as Japanese Yen and Chinese Yuan. The whole world was running on the Spanish Dollar as global currency as early as the 1500's. Obviously, there had to be global trade for the Japanese and Chinese to earn so much of the currency to use it domestically in their own countries.

New Renter says

Not correct. Although beer was produces in the colonies, hard apple cider was the drink of choice for most colonists.

I don't see how that contradicts my statements. In fact, apples grow quite well in Britain, which supports the position that the culture of Britain largely influence early American culture.

New Renter says

No beer didn't become popular here until the early to mid 19th century and the settlement of the midwest by Germans.

Samuel Adams

I'll take the History channel over Wikipedia any day despite some subject matter that should never be on the History Channel (ghosts, Big Foot, etc.).

http://www.history.com/videos/history-of-beer-in-america#history-of-beer-in-america

Also, http://beer.yoexpert.com/beer-and-food/what-is-the-history-of-beer-in-america-31982.html

In any case, I was addressing why beer has historically been more popular than wine in America. Had France controlled the original 13 colonies, I strongly suspect that wine would have been consumed far more than beer after the revolution.

Reality says

Both Corporations and Global Trade were highly developed long before the 19th century.

It is a joke to compare Roman commerce or the West Indies Sugar and Trading Company to modern day transnational corporations which are answerable to no state. Regardless of whether or not you use the same word to describe the two beasts, they are vastly different species.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Both Corporations and Global Trade were highly developed long before the 19th century.

It is a joke to compare Roman commerce or the West Indies Sugar and Trading Company to modern day transnational corporations which are answerable to no state. Regardless of whether or not you use the same word to describe the two beasts, they are vastly different species.

It is not a joke at all. The comparisons are very much applicable. The British East Indies Company was a privately held company that literally directed British foreign policies in half the world, more so than today's big oils directing US foreign policies in Pipelinestans. In Roman times, Corporations were formed and legally recognized not only for commercial reasons but also for religious and civic/governmental reasons . . . as they are today. Temporal Exceptionalism (this time it's different) is as silly as Spatial Exceptionalism (American Exceptionalism).

Strategist says

How would society determine the best combination to create the most efficient society? It can only be through democracy. Power concentrated on too few people is what leads to maximum inefficiencies.

Although I agree that concentrated power leads to many bad things including inefficiencies, I do not buy that this results in the conclusion that democracy is a way, nonetheless the only way, to maximize efficiency.

More importantly, maximizing efficiency is hardly the only goal of economics. Stability, fairness (people keeping what they produce, not what they control), sustainability, and growth (which is completely different from efficiency) are also important to name just a few things.

Furthermore, the word efficiency can refer to a multitude of measurements. Is it efficient to burn coal? If you ignore the environmental costs and effects (bad health, poisoning the food supply, acid rain, etc.) than coal is the most efficient fuel. If you don't ignore these costs, then coal is the least efficient fuel. Two diametrically opposing conclusions based on how you measure things.

More to your point, I don't buy into the idea that markets behave rationally. A fully democratic decision making process is essentially a market of ideas. If economic markets behave irrationally, why shouldn't value markets behave irrationally as well? Even if all the individuals in the market are behaving completely rationally, the collective may be highly irrational.

sbh says

The message couldn't be clearer: education makes you "hell-bent on controlling the rest of society". Education is the enemy of freedom. All institutions of learning are fascist organizations. The anarchist's proudest fire uses books as tinder.

Stop projecting your own prejudices. Education is usually beneficial to the upbringing of children . . . however, in the aftermath of rapid economic growth and prosperous times, educational institutions/systems can latch itself to supplying to the coercive class (producing recruits for government jobs) instead of orienting itself to producing candidates for market jobs. This is more of an indictment on the human condition after experiencing a period of prosperity than education per se; although bad education does amplify the problem. Many normally productive processes turn bad after prosperous times. I'd think even you would consider education that detaches from reality as bad education. Bad goods and services get through the market during prosperous times because the overall demand is so enormous in just about anything.

As for using books for tinder, that's the specialty of collectivists throughout human history. They, like you, want a particular form of "structure," so anything dissenting from that is only fit for use as tinder, for them.

I see this everyday in the Market/Fashion district in LA and LAX. No one cares about their jobs anymore, they just walk around like zombies, barely lifting their heads up when you talk to them.

Of course these are the "agency" people I'm talking about. Forklift loaders and receiving area workers who are paid minimum wage for doing jobs that paid twice as much 15 years ago, the agency has truck drivers too who work for $11/hr. I talk to the few full time employees left in some of these companies, and they say the agency workers are combative, steal like crazy, and only come in when they feel like it, it's absolute chaos.

The companies that do still pay good wages for their non sales/management positions have employees that are usually friendly and assertive. Plus they have a multicultural mix of employees, whites, Asians, blacks and American born Latinos. While the agency and minimum wage workers are about 95% foreign born Latinos. Companies are getting what they pay for, I can say that.

Maybe we should stamp their foreheads with a big letter "R". Sounds like a plan to me.

sbh says

Stop projecting

This means you've lost and have nothing left to lie about.

You are the loser who mistook my criticism of bad education for criticism against education in general.

sbh says

educational institutions/systems can latch itself to supplying to the coercive class (producing recruits for government jobs) instead of orienting itself to producing candidates for market jobs

Only in your mind is there a difference.

Seriously? Do you not realize that more than 70% of Saudi college graduates major in Theology as the government guarantees jobs for college graduates that Theology happens to be the easiest degree track . . . the statistics in the West was just as stark before industrial revolution produced market demand for science and technology majors: most college graduates in the West before the mid-19th century were also theology majors. If the government become the main job provider going forward, the modern equivalent of theology majors will once again attract a disproportionate number of young minds, as witnessed by the rapid decline of science and engineering majors in recent years in favor of financial engineering and global-warming "science" etc. subsidized by government funding.

sbh says

education that detaches from reality

WTF? What cesspool of dementia did you dredge this non-concept out of? Does this describe books on alchemy, religion, all of fiction? You'll say anything, literally anything.

You are only proving your own ignorance. When government dominates the economy or even a discipline, social prmotion/academic promotion based on a particular theocratic template of merit is quite common. For example, almost all universities before the industrial revolution (Christian scriptures in the West, Orthodox Christian scriptures in Eastern Europe, Islamic scriptures in the middle east, and Confucian scriptures in the far east), genetics in the former soviet union in much of 20th century, global-warming "science" and quite a few economics departments in many of own universities. The phrase "ivory tower academia" was coined for a reason. Education institutions can run off track from reality sometimes, regrettably. When that happens, the society suffers as a vast cross section of young minds are corrupted by wacky ideas that will have to be proved false after systematic real life trial and errors on a large scale at tremendous cost.

This is very good news for economy. ;)

Cheap money goes a long a way to screw things up very badly. One more recession is needed to really increase the inventory. There is every reason for money to be available at 0%.

Now, you don't start the debate with liberals.

No doubt a zionist conspiracy.

SBH,

So you think 70% - 100% of college graduates majoring in theology is the mark of a great education system and a wonderfully productive society?

Families and individuals invest resources and time in education in order to give the kids a leg up on other kids. A society can be set up in such a way that kids have the leg up by having a set of skills that other people will want to hire, or it can be set up such that the leg-up is fulfilling a paper requirement that the government will subsidize. Parents and individuals would respond accordingly to either set of incentives. For thousands of years in human history, "education" was about pursuing a theology degree so that the kid can have a privileged job in the government or the government-endorsed church.

Reality says

SBH,

So you think 70% - 100% of college graduates majoring in theology is the mark of a great education system and a wonderfully productive society?

Families and individuals invest resources and time in education in order to give the kids a leg up on other kids. A society can be set up in such a way that kids have the leg up by having a set of skills that other people will want to hire, or it can be set up such that the leg-up is fulfilling a paper requirement that the government will subsidize. Parents and individuals would respond accordingly to either set of incentives. For thousands of years in human history, "education" was about pursuing a theology degree so that the kid can have a privileged job in the government or the government-endorsed church.

I do remember reading 80% of Saudi college students major in religious studies, the least marketable of all majors. Today the Saudis can't even dig a fucking hole to get their oil, without the help of foreigners.
It's a case study in what you should not do.

sbh says

The message couldn't be clearer: education makes you "hell-bent on controlling the rest of society". Education is the enemy of freedom. All institutions of learning are fascist organizations. The anarchist's proudest fire uses books as tinder.

SBH, why do you think that? If no one went to universities how would we have any progress at all? The computer you are looking at right now could not have been made without universities. The same goes for virtually everything you use. We would be living in the 15th century with no cure for the plague.

Strategist says

I do remember reading 80% of Saudi college students major in religious studies, the least marketable of all majors. Today the Saudis can't even dig a fucking hole to get their oil, without the help of foreigners.

Why don't they just pray to their god to create holes for them? Surely that would work. He's omnipotent.

Come to think of it, isn't prayer the Republican healthcare plan for the masses?

Obligatory:

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

I do remember reading 80% of Saudi college students major in religious studies, the least marketable of all majors. Today the Saudis can't even dig a fucking hole to get their oil, without the help of foreigners.

Why don't they just pray to their god to create holes for them? Surely that would work. He's omnipotent.

Come to think of it, isn't prayer the Republican healthcare plan for the masses?

I'm sure the Saudis tried that. They are still waiting.

http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/17787-ffrf-banner-in-wilkes-barre-nothing-fails-like-prayer

https://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?nid=89205&showcomments=T

It’s a Loss in Md: 73K Lose Insurance; 60K Enroll on Exchange
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/it-s-loss-md-73k-lose-insurance-60k-enroll-exchange#sthash.50kiDuOH.djrIOg6b.dpuf

(CNSNews.com) – The head of the Maryland Health Insurance Exchange testified Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only 60,000 people have signed up for Obamacare through the state’s exchange - 13,000 less than the number of individuals reported to lose their insurance due to Obamacare.

“According to our reports, according to AP, press accounts, 73,000 individuals in Maryland were going to lose their insurance because of the Affordable Care Act, and what you’re telling me is your revised goal is approximately the same number – 75,000. So your revised goal of people you’re gonna sign up is: We’re gonna sign up the people who were kicked off of the Affordable Care Act,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said.

On Nov. 4, 2013, the Baltimore Sun reported: “About 73,000 policy holders around the state will lose their insurance in coming months because nine insurance companies are dropping some health plans that were not grandfathered under the Affordable Care Act, the Maryland Insurance Administration confirmed Monday.”

In prepared written testimony, Joshua Sharfstein, chair of the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange, said, “We expect that by the time the dust settles, more than 290,000 Marylanders will have enrolled in coverage since January 1, including more than 60,000 Marylanders in qualified health plans and more than 230,000 Marylanders in Medicaid.”

Jordan grilled Sharfstein on the statement he made earlier to the committee that Maryland was “meeting our goals.”

“I think a lot of people would disagree with that,” Jordan said. He pointed out that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) gave the state the goal of 150,000 enrollees in the individual exchange by April 1, “and as of April 1, as of a couple days ago, you’ve enrolled 60,000 people.”

According to Sharfstein, the Hilltop Institute at the University of Maryland Baltimore County - not CMS – revised Maryland’s goal for enrollment in the individual market down from 150,000 to 75,000.

Sharfstein took issue with Jordan’s comparison of those who would lose insurance due to Obamacare to the number of Obamacare enrollees.

“You’re comparing apples and oranges with all due respect,” Sharfstein said.

“I’m comparing people who got kicked off because of this law, and I’m comparing the number you said you’re going to sign up through your exchange, which is far below roughly half of what the initial number that CMS gave you,” Jordan said.

“I think an apples to apples comparison would be the size of the individual market before and after, so whether people have coverage in the individual market before January 1st versus after, because some people don’t need subsidies. They’ll go right to a carrier,” Sharfstein said.

“We’re seeing not only just the exchange enrollment, the outside the exchange enrollment, which is probably going to be at least that, plus the fact that people could renew early. We’re gonna see a much bigger individual market. That’s the apples to apples comparison,” he added.

“I think you’re leaving out the fact that your calculation, what you just went through, those that are kicked off. There are certainly people who are now in the individual market. They just get kicked off their plan,” Jordan reiterated.

Dan8267 says

In any case, I was addressing why beer has historically been more popular than wine in America. Had France controlled the original 13 colonies, I strongly suspect that wine would have been consumed far more than beer after the revolution

Doubtful. Beer is popular in area's where hops grows well, wine is popular in area's where wine grapes grow well. Most of the original 13 colonies were much more conducive to growing hops than wine grapes. The dutch west india company brought brewing to new amsterdam (now called new york city) sometime around 1600 I believe and spread it from there. Almost all beers were british type ales until heavy gernan immigration then lagars, which are easier to brew and store much better than ales, became popular.

Beer consumption was high in Quebec in colonial times.

Ponzi scheme or bubble, this is a sellers market, and not a time to buy.

This is not a time for buyers unless you have money to burn or you are extremely gullible. It really is that simple. Buy low sell high. There is a time for everything under the sun.

If someone is convincing you to buy in this market I will bet it's a real estate agent and not someone who really cares about your future.

Why is everyone complaining when two thirds of the homes are affordable?
Is there something wrong with buying something you can afford?
It's not a human right to own a Malibu mansion overlooking the Pacific.

Strategist says

Why is everyone complaining when two thirds of the homes are affordable?

Is there something wrong with buying something you can afford?

It's not a human right to own a Malibu mansion overlooking the Pacific.

Straight up. Buy a little house or wait until prices fit your budget!

(the 1/3 is national, local as much as 1/2+ unaffordable)

JH says

Strategist says

Why is everyone complaining when two thirds of the homes are affordable?

Is there something wrong with buying something you can afford?

It's not a human right to own a Malibu mansion overlooking the Pacific.

Straight up. Buy a little house or wait until prices fit your budget!

(the 1/3 is national, local as much as 1/2+ unaffordable)

Exactly. That is what I did, and I was happy as a puppy.
I don't even care for Malibu mansions.

Strategist says

JH says

Strategist says

Why is everyone complaining when two thirds of the homes are affordable?

Is there something wrong with buying something you can afford?

It's not a human right to own a Malibu mansion overlooking the Pacific.

Straight up. Buy a little house or wait until prices fit your budget!

(the 1/3 is national, local as much as 1/2+ unaffordable)

Exactly. That is what I did, and I was happy as a puppy.

I don't even care for Malibu mansions.

My wife would only make me vacuum the whole place.

Strategist says

I don't even care for Malibu mansions.

My wife would only make me vacuum the whole place.

Hahaha...that's my wife's complaint too. That and 'who will clean all the bathrooms'???

Well, if you live in Silicon Valley even a molding shack is overpriced. Believe me, it's not a Malibu home here that goes for half a million, it's molding shack near the fault line or in a bad neighborhood.

hrhjuliet says

Well, if you live in Silicon Valley even a molding shack is overpriced. Believe me, it's not a Malibu home here that goes for half a million, it's molding shack near the fault line or in a bad neighborhood.

Um, ever been to Malibu? It's cash, celebrities, etc. Not unlike the fortress up north. Nothing goes for 1/2M in malibu!

Strategist says

Why is everyone complaining when two thirds of the homes are affordable?

Is there something wrong with buying something you can afford?

So essentially you are saying it is ok that 1/3 of the population should not have a roof.

Historically, human beings always were able to build some kind of shelter or tent where to live. Yes that was a human right.

Now this whole housing process has become soo overdone that even relatively well-off families are forced to live at 4 in 1 db room. The average family spends thirty years to pay for a shack that any single human could put together in maybe a year worth of actual work.

And you don't see a problem.

hrhjuliet says

Well, if you live in Silicon Valley even a molding shack is overpriced. Believe me, it's not a Malibu home here that goes for half a million, it's molding shack near the fault line or in a bad neighborhood.

In Silicon Valley a mud hut next to a toxic dump could go for half a million.
That's why I don't live there.
Can a mud hut withstand a 7.5 quake?

Heraclitusstudent says

Now this whole housing process has become soo overdone that even relatively well-off families are forced to live at 4 in 1 db room.

Rent until the prices come down. It's deja vu circa 2006. This isn't sustainable just like that wasn't. The worst thing one can do is take out a 2.5% ARM right now because they have a right to a roof.

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

Why is everyone complaining when two thirds of the homes are affordable?

Is there something wrong with buying something you can afford?

So essentially you are saying it is ok that 1/3 of the population should not have a roof.

Historically, human beings always were able to build some kind of shelter or tent where to live. Yes that was a human right.

Now this whole housing process has become soo overdone that even relatively well-off families are forced to live at 4 in 1 db room. The average family spends thirty years to pay for a shack that any single human could put together in maybe a year worth of actual work.

And you don't see a problem.

Look at the heading of the thread.
It implies two thirds of the homes for sale are affordable. There is nothing to complain about.

bob2356 says

Most of the original 13 colonies were much more conducive to growing hops than wine grapes.

Essentially the same as my point, except that instead of beer culture being brought over from Britain, it arose in the 13 colonies for the same reason it arose in Britain. Nonetheless, there are plenty of areas in America today where you can grow grapes, so either way the popularity of beer comes down to what was grown in the local culture.

JH says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

This is more of a false flag than a bubble. Or maybe a Ponzi scheme.

Sam1000 says

Old news, this is very obvious here in Southern California. However, homeowners will be in denial like they always are and chant that this runup is the "recovery" when it clearly is a speculative bubble.

This is the return to "normal" following a bull trap whose time was extended by fed policy.

Most markets are cyclical. This is certainly not a a buyers market.

JH says

Rent until the prices come down.

It seems that is what young tech folks are doing, causing a rental bidding exercise, and even higher house price (RE is a better investment since rental yield is much higher than the low Treasury yield) near tech neighborhood. When would this feedback loop break?

JH says

This is the return to "normal" following a bull trap whose time was extended by fed policy.

I take it you mean we should wait for the imminent dip and then "buy the dip".

Yes, buying in the pit of despair is always best, as macabre as that sounds. Buying at the bottom is not always possible, but buying at the peak is insane, and in this particular market it's like paying a tribute to graft.

sbh says

The value of education, especially liberal arts, is that it TEACHES YOU HOW TO THINK.

Yes! And we need people who THINK more than ever. Well done sbh!