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.
401K everyone puts money in the Dow goes up every pulls out the Dow goes down know this in advance and make a lot of money. Baby boomers.
Why would people put 401K money in the stock market? You want tour tax-INefficient investments like TIPS in your 401k, not your tax-efficient investments. Who in their right mind would want to convert capital gains to ordinary income?
If they were to radically drop their prices yes we would not need a minimum wage. But they would take a paper lose on the deal so up minimum wage far enough and the price of homes will start coming up and the economy will turn around. This will also tend to fix the P/E ratios of stocks.
Under my plan, developers would not lose any profits, or have any paper losses.
How about if a developer has a 10,000 square foot piece of land, instead of being allowed to build only one ($200,000) house (say, 2000 square feet), the developer could subdivide it into four pieces and build four ($75.000) houses, 500 square feet each?
Developers might even be able to increase profits.
I think people do deserve a living wage. Before FDR died, he was trying to pass a new bill of workers rights to provide this. People need to be able to work and make ends meet. The real value of wages has stagnated over the cost of living for the past few decades. If people could get jobs and make an honest living without public assistance, more would do so, and there should be incentives for that as well as work programs for the lazy people to at least recruit them to clean up the city, paint things, etc.
I would say that teens living with their parents would not need a high minimum wage, but one based on their life experience. Consider also someone like me at 56, who made more per hour for a job 15-20 years ago than what the market is offering now for new hires, while all expenses have at least doubled, if not more. Maybe companies can evaluate prospective hires for their skills and choose between them on that basis, and have to pay them a rate based on experience, increasing with age and experience, and have some sort of affirmative action program that they had to hire a certain percentage across the age spectrum, from teens to early 60's. Also, perhaps if the city/county had a household profile (how many people living in the household and the rent/expenses), they could set the minimum wage from that for each person and force the employers to pay at least a base rate based on need, as a condition of them doing business in the area (the young would get the least and the older more), but guaranteeing a living wage for the household. It's probably socialism, but if it would cut down welfare they may actually be able to subsidize some hiring as well.
Under my plan, developers would not lose any profits, or have any paper losses.
How about if a developer has a 10,000 square foot piece of land, instead of being allowed to build only one ($200,000) house (say, 2000 square feet), the developer could subdivide it into four pieces and build four ($75.000) houses, 500 square feet each?
Developers might even be able to increase profits.
Problem number one we are currently over built.
Problem number two this goes against the trend. Back in the day 500 square ft houses were common. Pushing for higher profits pushed for Mac Mansions. The zoning laws are written so that you need bigger houses those would nee to be re-written.
Problem number three we have a several year backlog of existing houses in foreclosures and that haven't been foreclosed on. This means that we aren't going to see a large demand for new construction any time soon.
Without full employment we aren't going to see more demand for houses. With falling housing prices we aren't going to see full employment. With the falling price of houses we are having contraction in M3. This is deflation. With higher consumer prices we are having inflation. the combination is stagflation. http://tic2tic.com/images/djia_gold_relative_ratio.png If you look at where we had stagflation in the past. 1970's it was on the down side of the gold/Dow ratio. We are on the down side of that ratio now as well. If you want real inflation then we need way more income. We need to push the ratio to the bottom quickly.
Problem number two this goes against the trend. Back in the day 500 square ft houses were common. Pushing for higher profits pushed for Mac Mansions. The zoning laws are written so that you need bigger houses those would nee to be re-written.
Problem number three we have a several year backlog of existing houses in foreclosures and that haven't been foreclosed on. This means that we aren't going to see a large demand for new construction any time soon.
Without full employment we aren't going to see more demand for houses. With falling housing prices we aren't going to see full employment. With the falling price of houses we are having contraction in M3. This is deflation. With higher consumer prices we are having inflation. the combination is stagflation. http://tic2tic.com/images/djia_gold_relative_ratio.png If you look at where we had stagflation in the past. 1970's it was on the down side of the gold/Dow ratio. We are on the down side of that ratio now as well. If you want real inflation then we need way more income. We need to push the ratio to the bottom quickly.
1) From the perspective of a low income person (like me), since we experience a shortage of affordable housing, we literally need the largest supply of housing the private sector can deliver. Therefore, more construction is welcome and should not be discouraged or prevented.
2) Yes, it goes against the trend, but the trend is one of class warfare against the poor - by zoning for McMansions and not for 500-sf houses, low income people are kept in rent slavery by the middle and upper classes.
Besides, the trend is turning. The new "green" or "sustainable" paradigm should be welcoming to small houses with greater energy efficiency and lower carbon footprints. (Where are the greenies when I need them?)
3) Low income people are experiencing NO backlog of affordable housing, there is not nearly enough to meet existing demand. Rents ARE inflating and I expect rents to necessarily skyrocket within five year. Small houses are our ONLY hope if low income people are to avoid destitution.
1) From the perspective of a low income person (like me), since we experience a shortage of affordable housing, we literally need the largest supply of housing the private sector can deliver. Therefore, more construction is welcome and should not be discouraged or prevented.
You are looking at affordable housing. I am looking at macroeconomic structuring. Historically we had 60% of the population as homeowners. At the peak of the bubble we were at 70%. We are currently overbuilt by 1/6. We have a massive debt bubble that is popping. We need to stop building more houses. We also nee to clear out the back inventory of existing houses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
2) Yes, it goes against the trend, but the trend is one of class warfare against the poor - by zoning for McMansions and not for 500-sf houses, low income people are kept in rent slavery by the middle and upper classes.
Part of the class warfare is home ownership and home equity loans instead of jobs that pay well. Those good paying jobs that went overseas never to come back we need the pay those jobs had to come back. Upping the minimum wage can return that pay, as long as we get full employment first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Besides, the trend is turning. The new "green" or "sustainable" paradigm should be welcoming to small houses with greater energy efficiency and lower carbon footprints. (Where are the greenies when I need them?)
In the pay of the moneyed elite?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
3) Low income people are experiencing NO backlog of affordable housing, there is not nearly enough to meet existing demand. Rents ARE inflating and I expect rents to necessarily skyrocket within five year. Small houses are our ONLY hope if low income people are to avoid destitution.
Home owners or former home owners are moving into rentals, houses down rents up. It is the nature of the game. If you want rents to go down then up minimum wage this will make new demand for houses and give the working poor more money.
“Only hope”? We are headed into stagflation, high unemployment and high inflation. Real inflation brings with it full employment. If we want real inflation then we need asset inflation as well as wage/price inflation. What we have now is asset deflation with wage deflation and price inflation, the worst of both worlds.
If we have a spike in consumer spending then we should get a spike in employment. Print some money and give it to everyone. This should get a spike in consumer spending.
If the lowest paid full time worker is making $60K a year then they will be in the market for a $180 K house. (If you had $60k a year income you wouldn’t be crying about high rents you would be looking for a house that was foreclosed.) So upping the minimum wage to $30/hr would make rents affordable.
(The combination of these two will drive down rents and drive up the price of houses.)
If you have a high enough savings rate in a country then the savings rate meets the demand for loans and there is an excess. The excess tends to be used to buy debt in foreign countries. This tends to drive exports.
(The combination of these three will tend to rebuild our manufacturing base.)
We have way too much debt in this country. We can’t afford to have higher interest on the national debt. But we need to keep the debt bubble collapsing. So tax the payment of interest on debt. This will make the public interest rate different from the privet rate.
(The combination of all four of these things will tend to get the economy turned around and set up for long term economic growth.)
Problem number two this goes against the trend. Back in the day 500 square ft houses were common. Pushing for higher profits pushed for Mac Mansions. The zoning laws are written so that you need bigger houses those would nee to be re-written.
Problem number three we have a several year backlog of existing houses in foreclosures and that haven't been foreclosed on. This means that we aren't going to see a large demand for new construction any time soon.
Without full employment we aren't going to see more demand for houses. With falling housing prices we aren't going to see full employment. With the falling price of houses we are having contraction in M3. This is deflation. With higher consumer prices we are having inflation. the combination is stagflation. http://tic2tic.com/images/djia_gold_relative_ratio.png If you look at where we had stagflation in the past. 1970's it was on the down side of the gold/Dow ratio. We are on the down side of that ratio now as well. If you want real inflation then we need way more income. We need to push the ratio to the bottom quickly.
I think we are MISbuilt, not OVERbuilt. I rent a 12 x 10 room with four other people in a 1,200 square foot house, and the person from whom I rent has 500 sf all to himself. So I definitely do not feel overbuilt.
Yes, the zoning codes desperately need reform - they are designed to prevent poor people from owning homes. If that's not class warfare, what do you call it? That doesn't require a whole re-write, just add some zoning for smaller lots. (Put that zoning on the wrong side of the tracks if you'd like.)
There is a backlog of MISbuilt houses. As long as NOBODY is addressing the housing needs of low-income singles, homes will continue to be misbuilt, and low-income singles will be denied opportunity to buy homes and will face excruciating rents. Since new construction has slowed to a trickle, supply will not be sufficient to provide relief for years from soaring rents.
If we are OVERbuilt, why are 26% of renters paying more than half their income for housing? From my perspective, I need all the housing the private sector can provide, and there isn't nearly enough housing.
I was wondering what everyone's opinions are on a minimum wage increase?
I think its ironic that people have objections to the increase from 5.15 to 7.25
an hour at the federal level, many states have already raised the minumum wage to about that level.
According to the CBO in the next 5 years the minimum wage increase would cost 16.5 billion dollars from private sector employers.
I personally think that government should cover half the cost of the 16.5 billion dollar in wage hikes do to the minimum wage increase. That way the small locally owned retail and service companies wouldnt need to lay people off if this passes or cut hours.
I think a good idea would be for the goverment to cover the increase in minimum wage in economically depressed counties with unemployment rates above say 6% or in areas with poverty rates above 15%. That way the employer would still only have to pay 5.15 and the government could pay the 2.10.
While minimum wage hikes are good alot of small and medium sized retail and food servicecompanies in economically depressed areas could need to lay people off if this increase passes, so thus I dont see why the government doesnt cover the minimum wage increase for these companies.
Many who work now under any proposed increased minimum wage level would lose their jobs. It would probably exasperate the black teenage employment rate.
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.
