Don't worry we are doing GREAT!

User Forum Topic
Submitted by SD Realtor on July 28, 2013 - 7:28pm

Submitted by kev374 on July 28, 2013 - 8:25pm.

All reports indicate a very strong economic recovery with strong job and income growth. This has been fueling the strong 30% increase in home prices just within the last year. The expert economists are saying that prices will rise albeit more slowly at a rate of 10% a year for a couple more years before tapering off at a more modest 5% a year.

At the forecasted rate I predict a median price of $1 million in Orange County with San Diego county perhaps a bit below that :)

This poverty stuff is hogwash...it just isn't reality for most people who are doing really well. People with rising home prices are spending, some are even taking out home equity and spending.

Right now if you are not doing very well it's your own fault.

Submitted by spdrun on July 28, 2013 - 8:36pm.

What 30% increase in home prices? Certainly not on a national-average level, and only in places where speculation has been rampant and prices are historically very volatile (read: CA coastal cities, Phoenix, and maybe Vegas).

"This poverty stuff is hogwash...it just isn't reality for most people who are doing really well." Tautology much? Gotcha, must be trollin' trollin' trollin'.

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 29, 2013 - 7:05am.

Like I said, sounds like things are great.

We need more well informed citizens like yourself.

Submitted by EconProf on July 29, 2013 - 8:10am.

The article is hard to plod through because it is a grab-bag of unrelated statistics, faulty reasoning, and jumping to conclusions with inadequate evidence.
The main sentence which seems to be resonating is the following:

"Higher recent rates of unemployment mean the lifetime risk of experiencing economic insecurity now runs even higher: 79%, or 4 in 5 adults, by the time they turn 60."

This sloppy sentence reminds me of how my weakest students, and often worst writers, were journalism majors. (The best: engineers)
First, recent unemployment rates have been falling, not rising. Yes, there are huge measurement problems, and other well-known employment measures that are worsening, but these are not mentioned by the author. Second, how does the author so precisely conclude that 79% of adults will be "experiencing economic insecurity" by the time they reach 60? Where, by the way, is "economic insecurity" even defined? And finally, what is so bad about feeling some economic insecurity in the four decades of living and working up to age 60? Economic insecurity just might teach one how to budget and plan, educate oneself properly, move to where the jobs are, and improve one's employability...kind of the American way. Lots of successful people, including us Piggs, had rough patches and bad luck and took the tough measures to overcome them.

Submitted by FormerSanDiegan on July 29, 2013 - 8:48am.

EconProf wrote:

"Higher recent rates of unemployment mean the lifetime risk of experiencing economic insecurity now runs even higher: 79%, or 4 in 5 adults, by the time they turn 60."

This means that 21% of folks reach the age of 60 without having experienced any economic insecurity.

I am amazed that this number is that high.

We should more heavily tax that priveledged 21%.

Submitted by sdduuuude on July 29, 2013 - 9:39am.

EconProf wrote:
The article is hard to plod through because it is a grab-bag of unrelated statistics, faulty reasoning, and jumping to conclusions with inadequate evidence.

I agree. A fairly worthless article, all told.

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 29, 2013 - 12:20pm.

I guess we all have different perceptions how the rest of the country is doing. I have spent the majority of the summer on travel. Lots of time in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina and a few other midwest states. Lots of other people don't share the same optimism, nor share the same wealth that the average Pigg poster has. Regardless of whether the article was well written or not, it does reflect much more of the state of many of my tenants that rent in my out of state properties. Just barely getting by.

Submitted by no_such_reality on July 29, 2013 - 1:00pm.

SD R, that's because California is young, dumb and single. They're too stupid to realize either how poor they are or how close to the edge they are.

32% of our population is under 24.
47% is under 34.
50% are currently single
with 1/3rd being never married.

Living five to a sh*thole at the beach and partying is the life.

Or they're just working and haven't gotten their first kick to the crotch.

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 29, 2013 - 1:15pm.

Yeah I understand that. Cannot argue with it. I am in that older crusty demo. It is funny because drive out to El Centro or up to Stockton and other places and it is just as bad as other areas around the country. I would be willing to bet the vast majority of piggs here are where they are at because of family. Not the silver spoon family, but middle class families that helped with opportunity. That is they had hard working parents that scrapped buy but were able to help them move forward in life. They saw that there was a very real possibility that their children could achieve a better life then they could. They then made the most of it by going to school, getting a job and working hard. Seems as if there are alot of people that don't recognize that this middle class family is rapidly diminishing. It may still exist for them in sunny San Diego where they can go out and purchase a 600k home but for the majority of the rest of the country, the middle class family that could work hard and could envision a better life for their kids is rapidly going going gone.

Submitted by flyer on July 29, 2013 - 3:35pm.

Interesting comments. Having traveled a great deal also, you definitely realize and appreciate that your lifestyle (especially in San Diego) is an exception to the rule, and is something which should not be taken for granted.

I've always felt that it's a lot easier to make a fortune than to sustain a fortune over a lifetime.

Throughout my life, I've known many people who have made loads of money, only to find themselves in a very different situation in their 50's and 60's+. Places like San Diego can eat people alive, financially, if they aren't careful.

Submitted by CA renter on July 29, 2013 - 9:47pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
SD R, that's because California is young, dumb and single. They're too stupid to realize either how poor they are or how close to the edge they are.

32% of our population is under 24.
47% is under 34.
50% are currently single
with 1/3rd being never married.

Living five to a sh*thole at the beach and partying is the life.

Or they're just working and haven't gotten their first kick to the crotch.

Great post. Could not agree more (assuming your stats are correct...I haven't verified).

Submitted by The-Shoveler on July 30, 2013 - 8:53am.

I am still predicting wage riots in the next few years.
Anyway in NY they’re back at it.

In much the same vein, a union-backed, New York-based community action group is trying for the third time since November to more than double the minimum wage of workers in the fast food industry via one-day walkouts they've organized in seven cities.
As my co-host Jeff Macke and I discuss in the attached video, in addition to their demand to earn a living wage, the group Fast Food Forward is, once again, also calling for better benefits, more hours and, unsurprisingly, the right to unionize.

Submitted by spdrun on July 30, 2013 - 10:09am.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer industry. Hope they drive the fast-fooders out of NYC and into the fucking suburbs where they belong. Too many Slobways opened up anyway... It wouldn't hurt to see say 50% of chains in Manhattan bankrupt.

The rest can afford to pay a living wage if people still want to eat their dreck.

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 30, 2013 - 10:56am.

why just fast food? what about 7/11 clerks? what about the guy who sits in the little booth at the gas station? what about all the walmart workers? Or the guy who mows the lawns? Really anyone that has a job that a 15 year old can do?

That is what we are saying correct?

Submitted by The-Shoveler on July 30, 2013 - 11:33am.

Not saying it is correct (or incorrect)

Just saying it's going to happen.

In Europe they have a tiered system,

High school/college age get a lower minimum

25 years gets a living wage.

You got robots doing what used to be $25-50 dollar an hour work. People need to live, guess what they revolt.

Like I said, not saying it's right, just inevitable

Submitted by spdrun on July 30, 2013 - 12:12pm.

SDR - imagine that, the Fed's inflation machine actually going to guaranteeing people a living wage instead of pumping up stocks or housing

The-Shoveler - if you can have robots doing work that laborers used to, that's a GOOD thing. You might be able to bring prices of domestic manufacturing down to the point that it's competitive with China, while still paying the robot mechanics, QC people, designers, programmers, builders of robots, etc a living wage.

Better robots on US soil than 50-cent-per-hour bio-robots in China or Vietnam. Stop fighting automation. Embrace it. It's what made the US economy what it was from about 1880 to 1960, and it's a shame that union obstructionists are fighting it tooth and nail, when they could embrace change and realize that DIFFERENT jobs don't necessarily mean NO jobs.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on July 30, 2013 - 12:25pm.

Not fighting anything, not saying Automation is bad.

Just saying things are going to change and not everyone can work at QCOM who lives in SD.

The whole Idea of robots is to cut labor and you only need so many hopper loaders.

Society is going to take a while to adjust.

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 30, 2013 - 12:26pm.

At some point the numbers break down.

I don't think that there is an equation that says

Europe = Correct

There is no natural quality of life guarantee. Those complaining about working at McDonalds can strive to improve their life. They can also thank the lord they were not born in some impoverished 3rd world country.

The reward for a job should not be based on the age of the person doing the job, it should be based on the quality of the work. Otherwise we would be paying people 50 bucks an hour to put a license plate frame on cars on an assembly line...something a chimp can do...

oh wait...

Submitted by The-Shoveler on July 30, 2013 - 12:29pm.

Not saying Europe is correct, just they have been at this game a little longer than we have.

Submitted by spdrun on July 30, 2013 - 12:35pm.

The whole Idea of robots is to cut labor and you only need so many hopper loaders.

Shoveler: My argument is that the automation of manufacturing, etc has already happened. It's just done by bio-robots in China and call-center employees in India.

Replace the bio-robots with actual robots in the US at a similar manufacturing + shipping cost, and manufacturing could actually come back to US shores en masse. It would be cleaner, safer, better quality, and most importantly, employ Americans at high productivity levels.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on July 30, 2013 - 12:41pm.

spdrun wrote:

The whole Idea of robots is to cut labor and you only need so many hopper loaders.

Shoveler: My argument is that the automation of manufacturing, etc has already happened. It's just done by bio-robots in China and call-center employees in India.

Replace the bio-robots with actual robots in the US at a similar manufacturing + shipping cost, and manufacturing could actually come back to US shores en masse. It would be cleaner, safer, better quality, and most importantly, employ Americans at high productivity levels.

Yep, Just a lot less people needed to get the same work done. (maybe 1 of 10, or 1 of 20).

this Automation thing is still just getting started. (just took it's first baby steps, you have not seen anything yet).

Submitted by spdrun on July 30, 2013 - 1:32pm.

Given the choice between automation and offshoring, I'll generally go for the former, since it keeps SOME jobs here and/or creates them if we manufacture for export. Problem is that unions seem to have made the wrong choice here. They've burnt down the house to kill the rat.

Submitted by deadzone on July 30, 2013 - 2:32pm.

Illegal immigrants are more than happy to take our minimum wage service jobs. Why are Americans so entitled that they can't survive on this wage? Oh that's right, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to ask for an American to live without a new car, Iphone, Plasma TV or Xbox.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on July 30, 2013 - 2:43pm.

I guess the question is,

Do you want a larger and larger part of your population to live like that and a smaller and smaller middle class (as seems to be the trend).

Submitted by spdrun on July 30, 2013 - 2:46pm.

$7.25/hr = about $14000/yr before taxes = $1166/mo. Let's assume that you somehow pay no tax...

Room = $600/mo min in NYC
Health insurance = $200/mo minimum
That leaves $366/mo for everything else?

You try living/eating/commuting on $12.20/day in the US.

Submitted by livinincali on July 30, 2013 - 2:49pm.

The-Shoveler wrote:
Not saying it is correct (or incorrect)

Just saying it's going to happen.

In Europe they have a tiered system,

High school/college age get a lower minimum

25 years gets a living wage.

You got robots doing what used to be $25-50 dollar an hour work. People need to live, guess what they revolt.

Like I said, not saying it's right, just inevitable

What exactly is a living wage. I hear this statement a lot but very little when it comes to defining what it means. I can probably successfully house, feed and cloth somebody for less than $20/day. Those seem to be the bare minimum to live. What other expenses are required to "live"

Submitted by no_such_reality on July 30, 2013 - 2:56pm.

Living wage is generally defined as an amount needed to cover a 1 bedroom apartment rent with 1/3rd of the gross income. Expenses in area are generally in line with local rents.

Submitted by deadzone on July 30, 2013 - 2:59pm.

spdrun wrote:
$7.25/hr = about $14000/yr before taxes = $1166/mo. Let's assume that you somehow pay no tax...

Room = $600/mo min in NYC
Health insurance = $200/mo minimum
That leaves $366/mo for everything else?

You try living/eating/commuting on $12.20/day in the US.

Well apparently there are thousands (millions?) of people living in NYC at those wages, how are they surviving? If you are a young person with no dependents and roommates to cut rent costs it should not be that hard. If you are an adult head of a household and you can't find a better job than fast food then you need to consider moving to a cheaper city. You also shouldn't have had kids if you can't afford it but that's a different subject.

Submitted by NotCranky on July 30, 2013 - 3:01pm.

Seemed like the theme was , "crackers are having it bad too".

Submitted by deadzone on July 30, 2013 - 3:03pm.

spdrun wrote:
$7.25/hr = about $14000/yr before taxes = $1166/mo. Let's assume that you somehow pay no tax...

Room = $600/mo min in NYC
Health insurance = $200/mo minimum
That leaves $366/mo for everything else?

You try living/eating/commuting on $12.20/day in the US.

Also, at that income level, if you were an American citizen you would certainly qualify for all kinds of government subsidies such as food stamps, government housing, etc. so your calculations are worse than reality. Yet somehow illegal immigrants manage to survive without those benefits (at least those without anchor babies won't get those benefits) and even manage to have money left over to send home as remittances.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.