U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-31-2017, 05:26 PM
 
5,771 posts, read 3,047,758 times
Reputation: 15135

Advertisements

People love it, but it's a really bad saying. A raising tide doesn't make the boats bigger so they all still float at the same relative level. Nothing changed there. Except for the boats with holes in them. And the people stuck with no boat to get on who get drowned. It's a really false analogy to use. Libertarians and "I got mine, the hell with everyone else" love it. Even as a conservative I hate it because it sets up a false expectation and will eventually lead to negative backlash.

 
Old 07-31-2017, 06:00 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
11,073 posts, read 11,482,914 times
Reputation: 17238
Quote:
Originally Posted by cekkk View Post
Truthfully? No. Not much. Burger flipping was never intended to provide a "living wage.". It's a kid's job, not a replacement for lost manufacturing jobs that once allowed people who didn't take education seriously to still earn a decent living. Fortunately for the elderly, fewer kids want those jobs

It's a shame so many elderly folks must survive on SS. But just as with the flipper pay, it wasn't intended to provide a living income but to supplement savings, to over simplify.

In my humble opinion government could best help by taking the profit out of poverty. Charity should be left to churches and charitable organizations. Exceptions for the damaged veterans and truly handicapped. It's disgusting, the amount of tax dollars spent buying votes with welfare for perfectly healthy people, leaving so little for those who truly need it.
Churches skipped out on that responsibility decades ago. That's why we ended up with a government program. Once they get a few million bucks ahead, they don't build housing for the poor, they build monuments to their own vanity.

The simplest way to deal with bums in our society would be the Universal Basic Income (UBI), set at poverty level. For one person, federal poverty level is $12,060/year. They get that as their base citizenship ration. For each dollar they earn, reduce the UBI by 50 cents, so if they earn $10,000 they get a check from the government for $7,060, and if they earn $36,180 they get nothing. There's plenty of incentive to go out and find a job, even $10k/year minimum wage or part time. The difference between $12k and $19k would make a big difference in their lifestyles. Eliminate food stamps. Eliminate welfare. Eliminate subsidized housing. Meanwhile, nobody is left totally without an income.
 
Old 07-31-2017, 10:50 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 20,740,810 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
And the thing that just blows my mind is you complaning about the rent rising again and again. The reason it's rising is because there are people, and a lot of them, who can afford that rent. That's why the rents are rising.


So the rent isn't too high and unaffordable in general. It's not affordable to YOU.

You forgot something. Rising rents signal producers (developers) to build more housing. But overregulated housing and land use markets have crippled the pipeline of new construction, i.e. a normal market would respond to rising rents by increasing supply accordingly.
 
Old 08-01-2017, 02:36 AM
 
64,752 posts, read 66,247,630 times
Reputation: 43132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perma Bear View Post
Inflation adjusted houses were 10x+ cheaper so a monkey could have afforded property. It's like me claiming the house I will inherit was earned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perma Bear View Post
In the 50s boats would float even with holes because of how cheap housing was.

median income in 1960 was 5600.00 , today it is 10x higher , the same as your statement about houses
 
Old 08-01-2017, 06:24 AM
 
4,310 posts, read 2,452,293 times
Reputation: 2424
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
median income in 1960 was 5600.00 , today it is 10x higher , the same as your statement about houses
Either you're extremely slow or you don't know how inflation works.

5600 in 1960 to now
$46,817.34 Only slightly lower.

12,000 in 1960 to now (for a house in San Jose)

100,322.87

Actualcost of a house in San Jose:
1,000,000+

See the difference ?
 
Old 08-01-2017, 06:35 AM
 
64,752 posts, read 66,247,630 times
Reputation: 43132
your wording was the issue not my understanding . YOU said inflation adjusted , homes are 10x what they were in the 1950's not me , i said incomes were up 10x too if that is your case .
 
Old 08-01-2017, 06:59 AM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,909,438 times
Reputation: 3787
No one outside of San Jose cares what a house in San Jose costs. Markets all over the country go up and go down. It's what they do. If you feel you've been left in the dust by some local market, there are options available to you.
 
Old 08-01-2017, 07:07 AM
 
5,607 posts, read 4,167,075 times
Reputation: 12348
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
You forgot something. Rising rents signal producers (developers) to build more housing. But overregulated housing and land use markets have crippled the pipeline of new construction, i.e. a normal market would respond to rising rents by increasing supply accordingly.

Supply has been increased. Just not the type of supply you can afford.
 
Old 08-01-2017, 07:12 AM
 
4,310 posts, read 2,452,293 times
Reputation: 2424
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
your wording was the issue not my understanding . YOU said inflation adjusted , homes are 10x what they were in the 1950's not me , i said incomes were up 10x too if that is your case .
Inflation adjusted means including inflation, see how it's 10x INFLATION ADJUSTED? It's 100x without factoring in inflation.

For a "successful guy" its a surprise you don't understand what simple words mean.
 
Old 08-01-2017, 07:13 AM
 
4,310 posts, read 2,452,293 times
Reputation: 2424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
No one outside of San Jose cares what a house in San Jose costs. Markets all over the country go up and go down. It's what they do. If you feel you've been left in the dust by some local market, there are options available to you.
Like commuting 2000 miles? I don't believe I can afford to commute by 707 or Saturn rocket.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top