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.
Supposed? Supposed??? That is an odd word to use in an economics forum. Perhaps it might make sense in a child-rearing forum, but in the context of economics, there isn't a "supposed." In a current events forum, it would be discussed as fake news.
"Can we blame young people for living at home longer" is the topic. "Blame" is a word of philosophy, in this context, a philosophy of child-rearing. So arguably the topic should not be in an economics forum.
And a number of respondents in this topic have made philosophical responses.
Quote:
That is a gross generalization of course. There is ample evidence that the wealthy are philanthropic. Some studies show they are more philanthropic than the general population; others show they are less philanthropic than the general population.
In modern times, many extremely wealthy have signed the giving pledge, where they promise to donate the majority of their wealth to philanthropy. https://givingpledge.org/
It seems your major theme is to criticize capital formation and wealth generation. That's very odd in the context of an economics forum.
My comment implied nothing at all about philanthropy or a lack thereof. You're projecting.
My great-great grandfather left a sharecrop in Mississippi to take part in the 1889 Oklahoma land rush, where he founded the only sawmill in the county. His sons and their sons stayed on that land, developing it as a farm and cattle ranch and became decently well off. It carried the family through the Great Depression and their Great Depression/WWII-era generation went to college.
But that generation sold the farm/ranch to move into town and get company jobs after WWII.
That transition didn't mean much to me when I was young, but right now I wish to God they'd kept that land.
I am encouraging my sons to live at home as long as they are willing, and to save their money for a solid down payment on a home of their own.
My oldest is at home and attending a local college. We are encouraging our 2nd son to go to school locally and save money as well.
It isn't about shielding them "from the big bad world" but it is about being wise with the resources they have (or don't have!) and saving for their future.
But I don't really care what others think of our decisions. Both of us have advanced degrees and we expect our children to achieve the same. We also have instilled a solid work ethic in our kids. We don't sugar coat things and we don't believe in coming to their rescue when they fail. So far, we have been very impressed with their choices in friends, in work situations, and at school. It isn't always perfect, but they are trying hard and learning.
... Let's say the market clearing wage is the even-lettered wage rate (B, D, F, H, etc). Under that scenario, the firm would be incurring higher costs because of its odd-lettered employees wages, and would face pressure from its competitors to the point where either (1) the company retreats from its ill-conceived scheme of paying too much, or (2) it goes belly-up because it cannot compete in the marketplace because of its too-high cost structure...
This is essentially Milton Friedman’s argument, that discrimination is ultimately bad for business, and therefore a truly unfettered free-market would expunge discrimination, not from lofty ethical aims, but from sheer self-interest on the part of business. But this assumes that business is rational. Is it? It seems to me, that companies and investors, collectives and individuals, can and do engage in breathtakingly idiotic actions, without necessarily suffering a quick comeuppance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
The fact that someone was able to make a million dollars selling pet rocks says a lot.
It does. It says that markets don’t necessarily reward the adding of value or improvement of the human condition. Instead, they reward a clever understanding of human nature, of tastes and emotions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
My great-great grandfather left a sharecrop in Mississippi to take part in the 1889 Oklahoma land rush, where he founded the only sawmill in the county. ...
That transition didn't mean much to me when I was young, but right now I wish to God they'd kept that land.
Would that land in rural Oklahoma have been sprightly appreciating in recent decades? While the story of enterprising hardscrabble investment is a laudatory example, I can’t help wondering to what extent ultimate success stems from luck. Take two farmers or mill-owners… one locates in what later becomes a moribund and declining area, one locates in what becomes the suburbs of DC or SF. They’re equally thrifty and hard-working. But decades or a century later, who has the more valuable property?
e success stems from luck. Take two farmers or mill-owners… one locates in what later becomes a moribund and declining area, one locates in what becomes the suburbs of DC or SF. They’re equally thrifty and hard-working. But decades or a century later, who has the more valuable property?
Except I'm not talking about a "what if," I'm talking about a real circumstance. There is no "what if" in history.
I would be better off now if my parents had kept that land.
And, btw, I did know a guy who had inherited a house in Old Towne Alexandria that had been in his family for over 200 years...and he was losing it because he was only a middle-level government worker and didn't make enough to pay the taxes on it.
So most likely, I'd still have my land in that "moribund and declining area" (which, btw, it isn't) and the guy who inherited the land in the suburbes of DC or SF might have lost it despite a desire to keep it.
Not my fault I have Lame-A** (TM) internet access. If I can move in with a friend (someone MIGHT be moving out, but uncertain), we're going to sell mass quantities.
Yet another poor excuse.
On AOL dial up, I managed to sell over 1000 items on eBay, all with good pictures.
And, btw, I did know a guy who had inherited a house in Old Towne Alexandria that had been in his family for over 200 years...and he was losing it because he was only a middle-level government worker and didn't make enough to pay the taxes on it.
Hmmm. Property taxes in the City of Alexandria are $1.073 per $100 of assessed value. This is comparable to rates elsewhere in the region. Mid-level government workers somehow manage to pay their taxes in all of those areas.
Hmmm. Property taxes in the City of Alexandria are $1.073 per $100 of assessed value. This is comparable to rates elsewhere in the region. Mid-level government workers somehow manage to pay their taxes in all of those areas.
What he told me. That was back around 1990.
Doesn't change my argument--I would still be better off owning that Oklahoma property free and clear now, because it's exactly what and where we happen to be looking to retire.
Ohio-Peasant's argument against owning my old family homestead free and clear is that someone somewhere else might have done better. Sorry, "someone else did better" is not an argument.
Ohio-Peasant's argument against owning my old family homestead free and clear is that someone somewhere else might have done better. Sorry, "someone else did better" is not an argument.
No, my argument is that two people, of like effort/talent/acumen, could end up with vastly different outcomes, on account of factors beyond their control. Returning to the theme of this thread, this is why it's unseemly and facile to "blame" people for not passing supposedly crucial milestones, such as buying their own house.
More specifically, myself being a resident of the Heartland, I am miffed by the fact that the houses that I and my compatriots bought decades ago, are worth no more (and in some cases less!) than what we paid for them; whereas over in Old Town Alexandria, VA, they've tripled in market-price in the interim. I would be totally fine with the traffic, congestion, regulation, high taxes, pollution etc. in a busy humming urban area, if my house were actually an investment, instead of a stagnant pile of bricks. And if I had an ancestor who had the fortitude and entrepreneurialism to buy land 130 years ago, well, of course I'd venerate that ancestor. But it would greatly irritate me, that that ancestor's initiative would 100+ years later be defiled by a market whose rewards are so uneven.
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.
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.
