Quote:
Originally Posted by Tampaite
|
Quote:
|
WESTLAKE VILLAGE, (MMD Newswire) October 13, 2011 -- Growth in residential television service revenues is being fueled by increased penetration of DVR hardware and additional viewing services, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2011 U.S. Residential Television Service Satisfaction StudySM released today
|
U.S. Residential Television Service Satisfaction Study Released by J.D. Power and Associates
Quote:
|
According to the Dish Network 2011 10K, there are approximately 99 million households in the US that subscribe to cable or satellite television. Cable television companies supply 58% of the market; Satellite accounts for 34%; and Telecom companies represent the remaining 8%.
|
So ~99 Million Households in the US get cable or satellite.
http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielse...rt-Q3-2011.pdf
At the bottom of Page #2, it says that 3/4 of US TV Households Subscribe to Broadband.
If you look on Page #6 at Table 10, you will see the following:
5.1 Million Households have Broadband Internet, but no Cable/Satellite
80.8 Million Households have Broadband Internet and Cable or Satellite
22.3 Million Households have Cable or Satellite, but either have no Broadband Internet or they they have Narrowband (Dial-Up).
There are only 5.8 Million Households having no Cable, no Satellite, no Broadband and no Dial-up.
If there are more than 5.8 Million households receiving Food Stamp benefits, then you're doing it wrong. Cut those benefits, because people don't need them. And the sad thing is that those 5.8 Million households are probably not receiving any form of welfare.
No poverty here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tampaite
You can spin all you want but if you have poverty, it will result in crime, drugs and ultimately instability.
|
There is no relationship between poverty and crime.
I've been in areas of the country that are so impoverished, you'd commit suicide, because you couldn't stand to live like that for even one second.
And for those impoverished countries that lack stability, that's usually the fault of the US, who keeps overthrowing governments and interfering politically, economically and socially, just like Obama who illegally over-threw the government of Honduras three years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tampaite
I see two things to happen: Either the wage increase rapidly(which has 0% probability) or your standard of living(a.k.a purchasing power) goes down(which is occurring as we speak)
|
Then I guess you'll just have to make adjustments to the way you live: multi-generational homes, sharing living accommodations whit other families and so on.
Sucks to be you.
Cutting wages...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason28
45 Million people currently on food stamps, U.S. Postal Service on verge of bankruptcy, high unemployment due to technological improvements & outsourcing, biggest U.S. city to date just declared bankruptcy a couple weeks ago with more following, some cities giving employees minimum wage, over 16 TRILLION in national debt without even factoring in the extra 50-60 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities like medicare, medicare, federal pensions, increasing rates of vacancy on rentals (as high as 20% in some areas like Orlando), Europe on the verge of financial collapse with very high potential to impact the U.S. very negatively, the Lieborgate scandal about to implode on some large U.S. banks, etc... But other than that stuff, yeah we're in pretty good shape.
|
That would be the long and short of it. Your total unfunded liabilities are over $100 TRILLION.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater
Much of this goes back to the fact that the US as a whole has been lagging behind in the educational attainment department.
|
But only at the primary and secondary levels.
25.8% of the 255 million working-age people in the US have a college degree.
What about other countries --- especially countries where college education is "free?"
4.7% have degrees in the United Kingdom
4.6% have degrees in Germany
3.6% have degrees in France
3.1% have degrees in Spain
Just to put that into perspective, there are 65,790,000 people in the US with college degrees, while the entire population of Germany is 81,770,000 people. Note that the US has more people with degrees than the entire population of the United Kingdom = 62,232,000 people.
Another way of looking at it:
1 in 4 American workers has a college degree
1 in 25 British workers has a college degree
1 in 25 German workers has a college degree
1 in 33 French workers has a college degree
1 in 33 Spanish workers has a college degree
Very obviously there is way too much focus on post-secondary education. That's a lot of wasted Capital.
Educationally...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
Add to that, the lack of affordable, universal healthcare (we desperately need a single payer system implemented) and the astronomical and completely unrealistic cost of attaining higher education and you have a perfect storm of keeping people trapped in a horrible cycle of vicious poverty.
|
Wow, this is easy to debunk.
Look at the education statistics above -- total fail. You are wasting Capital by throwing away money on people who are not even worthy of a college education and shouldn't even be allowed on a college campus.
Mediocrity begets Mediocrity.
As far as universal health care, fee-for-service fails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
And on top of all that, we spend billions upon billions on military spending (A LOT, if not most, of which is completely unnecessary) and our government galavants around the world playing 'policeman' instead of trying to fix the extremely pressing problems that we are facing here at home.
|
I guess you missed the speech where Bush the Younger said, "We will protect the American Way of Life."
Bush wasn't lying, he was telling the Truth. Your standard of living is inextricably linked to oil and natural gas, and the fact that the majority of the world uses the US Dollar as a
de facto currency of trade.
Iran's nuclear energy program is of no threat to you or the of the world, in fact you and the world benefit, but Iran's use of basket currencies to sell oil and other commodities on the Kish Island Exchange is a very grave and dangerous threat to your way of life.
The reason the US Dollar has a lower value than the Euro is because of the Euro, and because of the fact that Russia exercises their sovereign right and refuses to trade in US Dollars, trading instead in Rubles and Euros.
When China and Japan create a unified currency, the US Dollar will decline even more in value.
When more OPEC countries join Iran and start selling oil in basket currencies, the US Dollar will drop even lower.
And that will create havoc in Saudi Arabia and other MENA countries that are tied to the US with oil and US Dollars.
So, go ahead and cut your military budget, but before you do, make sure you have a place to live because you won't be living where you are now, and if you are, it's because your parents or your brothers and sisters or your friends are living with you and help you pay the bills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
Most other rich nations' governments are content trying to better the lives of their citizens, but ours just seems bent on this stupid industrial superpower complex.
|
The Norwegian Kroner isn't a big powerhouse currency, and the Norwegians don't really care if they sell their oil US Dollars, Euros, Rubles or kumquats.
The people in other countries are not into infantile hedonistic excess, like Americans are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
Even if we got rid of all insurance, as you suggested, and prices dropped, there still would be a substantial amount of people who wouldn't be able to afford/obtain proper health care.
|
So? You cannot save everyone. Making 10 people miserable so that one persons is not as miserable as they were is stupid and economically unsustainable.
Sometimes you have to cut off a finger to save the hand -- Master Po.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
We still wouldn't have universal health care in the US, which is what we desparatley need to help break the vicious cycle of poverty (for some) in this country.
|
No, it will not. There is no relationship between poverty and health care.
Define "
universal health care" in no uncertain terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
Having a UHC would greatly benefit the country and then we could just put all of that malarky behind us for good.
|
It will bankrupt your country. If you are unable to define it explicitly, then you cannot afford it.
How much money should we spend on one person in a life-time?
$1 Million?
Consider that with a life-span of 75 years, $1 Million is $13,000 per year per person for 75 years.
It would cost you $312 TRILLION and you don't have that money. You don't even have the $20,5 TRILLION you need to pay for Social Security, so how are you going to come up with $312 TRILLION?
$500,000?
That would be $6,500 per year per person. And it would cost $156 TRILLION. You cannot afford that either.
$250,000?
That would be $3,300 per year. And that would cost $78 TRILLION and I remind you that you don't have the $20.5 TRILLION you need for Social Security.
Get the point?
There's fantasy, and then there's reality. Learn and understand the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
For me personally, on a fundamental and moral basis, I believe that health care is a basic human right and that everyone is entitled to it.
|
By definition, you cannot be entitled to something that never previously existed. Health is care is neither a right, nor a privilege; it is a luxury, and you get it only if you can afford it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
We need to cover everyone and the best way forward, imho, is single payer. Single payer is proven to be one of the most (if not the most) cost-effective and efficient form of providing universal health care.
|
No, it hasn't. You see that other countries have some plan or system, but you don't understand that plan or system.
Other countries have a single payer system, but then other countries closed 60% of their hospitals and switched from the Hospital Model to the Clinic Model.
Are you willing to do that? Then why haven't you? Well, the AHA is an obstacle, as is the ACA.
Other countries have a single payer system, but then other countries run usage surveys to eliminate redundancy, and because of that, you cannot go to just any hospital you want. Sometimes if you want a specific procedure done, you'll have to travel several hours by car or train to get to a medical facilities that is capable of perform the procedures or surgery you need.
Are you willing to do that? Then why haven't you?
Other countries also have very specific treatment plans. For this illness, you undergo Treatment Plan A for a specified period of time. If Treatment Plan A does not work, then end of story...too bad so sad. Contrast that with the US where a patient spends 20 years on Treatment Plan A, then goes to Treatment Plan B, then experimental Treatment Plan C, then back to Treatment Plan A and so on.
Are you willing to do that? Apparently not, because you haven't done it yet.
Other countries also have spending caps. It isn't spend, spend, spend forever -- which is what you falsely believe it to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
Now, I'm not saying that we're in a rosy position, we're definitely not, but I wouldn't write us off so quickly. Things change so rapidly and no one knows what the future holds.
|
I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
And I think a lot of the BRIC stuff is very much overrated.
|
Giving water to people is over-rated?
In the 1920s, South American countries approached the US to build a trans-Andean highway and rail-line. The US refused. For 50 years the US refused. The US whined bitterly that such an highway and rail system would take away profits from the Panama Canal.
China ends up owning the Panama Canal.
Enter BRIC. What is the first thing BRIC does? Starts building a trans-Andean highway, rail-line and pipeline system. Is China concerned about profits? Nope. But China is concerned about the well-being and quality of life for the people, and that's why they're building it.
The US has lorded over Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua for 150 years, and yet millions of people in those countries have no running water, no electricity, no sewage and no roads.
When the US loses those economic slave states, and BRIC takes over, the very first thing BRIC will do is start building roads so that it can lay water, sewage and natural gas lines, and then put in electric lines, because, you now, that's the Christian thing to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
Their economies are doing well, no denying that, but the reason that they're growing at the rates that they are is because they're poor and underdeveloped countries. They will slow as they get bigger, undoubtedly.
|
Yes, two centuries from now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
They may have bigger economies eventually (which, news flash, they should have considering the ridiculous size of their populations, but they will be in no way wealthier than us).
|
Are you sure about that? Their growth comes at your expense.
Why do you think the US spent so much time and money, engaging in wars and wars by proxy, murdering heads-of-State in cold blood and oppressing people and denying them freedoms?
To keep them from developing, because their development is at your expense.
In other words, as their standard of living rises, yours declines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
These countries are still countries of emigration and don't have nearly the draw or "soft power" of the West. I really don't think that they've overtaken us at all. Heck, the only country that's doing well is Australia and their mining boom which is the only thing sustaining their economy is predicted to end in the next 2-3 years.
|
Wow, how ethnocentric. Learn that at university did you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
Even with all this disaster, the US is going to grow by 2% this year.
|
Are you sure? Because your 2nd Quarter GDP slowed to 1.5%, and that's just the initial guess. There will be two more revisions. And then you still have the 3rd and 4th Quarters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9
Not really good, but not too bad considering what's going on in the rest of the world.
|
Yeah? Well, you need to study more.
The HI (Medicare) Trust Fund is projected to last through 2024, if and only if all of the following conditions are met:
1] Your economy grows at an average annual rate of 5% from now through 2021 -- IMPOSSIBLE.
2] Medicare meets all of its revenue projections from now through 2021 -- IMPOSSIBLE.. since your economy will not grow at 5% and since your labor force participation rate will not exceed 66.5%.
3] Health care costs are less than what Medicare projects. -- seeing how Medicare failed on the first two, they underestimated the rising costs of health care as well.
Accordingly, Medicare will collapse in 2018, if not sooner (perhaps 2017).
You have 20 years, and no Social Security. Had you bothered to read the Trustee's Report, you'd know that over the infinite horizon -- 75 years through 2086 -- Social Security makes the ridiculous assumption that the US economy will average 6.4% GDP growth for 75 consecutive years.
And so you only owe $20.5 TRILLION.
You don't have $20.5 TRILLION now, and you will never have it.
No country on Earth has ever had that kind of growth rate, and the US since 1960 -- the last 50 years has averaged only 2.89%.
Best case scenario is the US averages 3% for the next 75 years in which case you'll come up about $92 TRILLION short. You don't have that money now, and you never will have it.
So if you want to impress me, and have any hope to persuade me to even consider something as stupid as UHC, then you need to figure out a way come up with $92 TRILLION to pay for Social Security, first, and then figure out a way to pay for Medicare, and then balance your budget and then, maybe, just maybe, I'll think about UHC.
Otherwise you're just barking at the Moon.
Realistically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
First, I will say I am glad the out of wedlock birth rate was mentioned. Something like 41% of children are now born to unmarried parents. You simply can't have a 41% out of wedlock birth rate and expect to have low poverty.
|
That is true.
That is the government's fault at all levels. Governments engage in "social-engineering" through legislation, and they can create whatever out-come they want.
If you enact laws that encourage certain behaviors or activities, then that is exactly what you'll get.
Change HUD regulations so that single unwed mothers under 26 and under get no HUD benefits, and those 27 and older get benefits if they have attained so many work credits --- like Social Security where you have to work 40 quarters to get OASI or OADI.
Watch what happens. See if out of wedlock births don't take a nose-dive.
Also, being on welfare should not be easy. People should be made to jump through hoops to the point that they're spending 30 hours a week standing in-lines, waiting around and filling out forms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
We should get rid of insurance altogether. That would eliminate 1/3 of our health care costs right off that bat. Plus, it would introduce something to our health care system that it hasn't had in more than 50 years: REAL COMPETITION.
|
But you don't have insurance.
How many Americans go without health insurance? 312 Million.
What you have is a fee-for-service based plan that effectively robs people to cover the costs of others, with no incentives for either health plan providers, health care providers or the end users --- the people -- to reduce costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
If the government was so good at managing health care costs, it would have proven it with Medicare/Medicaid. Yet for decades, Medicare/Medicaid costs have skyrocketed right along with privately funded health care costs.
|
That is because both Medicaid and Medicare are fee-for-service.
Fee-for-service without caps and limitations is a losing game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
I think the real problem is people can't envision a world without health insurance.
|
But you don't have "health insurance." I would be happy if people had the first clue what insurance is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
No doubt about that. College is increasingly becoming less and less worthwhile. Student loans have masked the problem for 20 years, but now the colleges are going to have to totally rethink the way they do things. The status quo is simply not affordable any more.
|
See the above data on college degrees in the US versus other countries.
Yes, it is absolutely true that students in other countries go to university for free or a cost that is so negligible that it is nearly free. But there is a price to be paid --- not everyone gets to go to college. Only the top 10% to maybe 15% get to go.
In others only "A" students go to college, and I mean real "A" students not some American Liberal's vision of what an "A" ought to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
Not that simple. It's EVERYONE's problem because we are all affected by what others do. When millions of people took out crazy mortgages they can't afford to pay back, ALL OF US were, and still are, very much affected by it.
|
Then you're going to need to start electing better government.
There is no good reason for tax-payers to subsidize mortgages by guaranteeing them. That's a private matter. The banks can pay for private mortgage insurance and pass that cost on to the home-buyer or dump the responsibility onto the home buyer or split the difference, with the lender paying part of the cost and the home buyer paying part of the costs.
I shouldn't have to bail out someone's mortgage because they took out a 2nd mortgage for a spend-fest and then a 3rd mortgage to consolidate credit card debt and then couldn't keep up with the payments.
And then you're going to have to engage in a massive counter-socialization campaign. An house is not an investment. It is merely a means to fix living expenses and a matter of personal taste. You now have two generations with this bizarre belief that houses are investments and that you're
supposed to profit off of them.
It'll take a long time to fix that mess.
Agreeing for the most part...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsjustmeagain
Actually, the best days are behind us. We had a good run after WW2. But now one part of the world has completely rebuild (Europe) and the other has Caught Up rapidly with us (BRIC). It's time to face reality. But looking at the state of politics in this country, I don't see how it is governable anymore. I see a breakup of the Union in it's long-term future.
|
Probably.
Rome.
Seriously, what I see is reaching a point where the US is divided into an Eastern US and a Western US very similar to the old Roman Empire. Or, another possibility is the pseudo-federal government creates "economic zones" that are administrative areas and Congress appoints a provincial governor to oversee that.
Very Solomonesque....like how the idiot Solomon-the-Least-Wise created taxation districts overlaying the tribal territories of the Hebrews and then appointing a governor to administrate them.
So, a provincial governor would be appointed for Washington, Oregon and California, and the governor would basically steal from Oregon and Washington to keep California afloat. A provincial governor in New England would steal from Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine to bailout Taxachewsux.
Otherwise, a lot of States are going to go bankrupt, and the federal government doesn't have the money to bail them out.
Imperially...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechGromit
The US postal problems have nothing to do with the economy. They over extended themselves betting that mail volume would continue to raise. They failed to take into account email and other new forms of communication. They were left with huge debts and idle equipment. It really wouldn't have mattered if the economy was red hot still, they still be in the same situation.
|
That is not their fault.
Congress forced USPS to take bulk mail -- junk mail -- and then forced them to process it at below market rates. That is why USPS is failing.
Congressionally...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by houstonlibrarian
China has over 400 million people that live on less than $2/day. That is over a third of the population. That is more people than the United States has as a whole. How many do you think we have in the US that live on less than $2/day?
|
It doesn't matter what I think. What matters is purchasing power parity.
Just become some Americans pay $1,200/month to rent a studio apartment doesn't mean the whole world does.
What's really sad about people like you, is that you'd turn down an opportunity to work for $800/month in a foreign country.....without realizing that $800/month in that country equals $4,000/month in the US because you're quite naive.
I live better in Romania on $350/month than I do in the US on $1,148/month.
Why do you think so many Americans retire to Costa Rica and Cheha? Because the countries cost less, have greater purchasing power parity and the US Dollar is worth more, which means they can live a life that they could only dream about in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by houstonlibrarian
This glamorizing of foreign countries, and trying to envision that they are somehow doing better than us is just another attempt to chip away at the American exceptionalism mindset. It's simply not true. The United States is light years ahead of these countries. It will take centuries for them to catch up.
|
Ah, a reality denier. That explains everything.
Understanding...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson
From the article.... ""I grew up going to Hawaii every summer. Now I'm here, applying for assistance because it's hard to make ends meet. It's very hard to adjust," said Laura Fritz, 27, of Wheat Ridge, Colo., describing her slide from rich to poor as she filled out aid forms at a county center. Since 2000, large swaths of Jefferson County just outside Denver have seen poverty nearly double."
It certainly did not stop her from having a baby that she could not afford, and getting her nails done. Gee, I didn't notice a wedding band - guess you get more welfare and food stamps if you have an illegitimate baby (that you can't afford).
The problem is that people spend their money on video games, going out to eat, and other expensive "toys" instead of paying off their debts and saving for a rainy day. It's the culture of consumerism. Not that consumerism is wrong IF YOU CAN AFFORD WHAT YOU ARE BUYING.
Sorry, as a person who lives frugally I have little sympathy for someone who makes their own misery *and* poverty.
20yrsinBranson
|
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.
