Ok. Let’s settle this once Ok. Let’s settle this once and for all.
Who do you think is overpaid the most RELATIVE to what they produce…
This is not to say who is paid the most… It’s overpaid RELATIVE to what they produce.
*Pay means complete pay package. Not just salary.
So, yes this includes any incentives such as stock options, pensions, bonuses,etc.
*Please exclude wall street folks, because we already know they are overpaid.
*And yes, please do share based on your personal experience. I really want to see where the pent up disgust is festering.
You can guess which one I voted for…
briansd1
January 20, 2012 @
9:46 AM
Hard to say in general.
In Hard to say in general.
In each category, there are people who are paid too much relative to what they economically produce.
But if I had to pick from the list, I’d say doctors. They have a captive audience, the least competition, and the barriers to entry that give them the ability to charge what they want.
Anonymous
January 20, 2012 @
9:54 AM
Econ 101: If there are no Econ 101: If there are no market restrictions on a good or service, the price will be exactly what it is “worth” to society.
In a truly free labor market, nobody is over/underpaid.
If you are looking for “overpaid,” look for market constraints and/or prices that are set by the government.
rent4now
January 20, 2012 @
10:21 AM
Anything Government related. Anything Government related. They have little to no accountability so they all eventually turn in to lazy leaches.
At least docters and realtors have more accountability!
scaredyclassic
January 20, 2012 @
10:24 AM
Many physicians are govt Many physicians are govt employed.
briansd1
January 20, 2012 @
10:37 AM
In government, there’s is at In government, there’s is at least transparency. What they get paid, we eventually find out.
In the private sector, when there are constraints, and when people have no choice but to use the services, the abuses can be much more egregious. And because the records are private, we never find out.
You can do without a lawyer or a mechanic if you don’t own a car. But when you get sick, you will go see the doctor. And if you can’t pay, the doctors will charge others to make up what he lost on you.
The reason health care is becoming an ever increasing share of the economy is because of the confluence of government mandates and the captive audience the health care industry enjoys. The health industry currently enjoys the privacy and profits of private enterprise and they enjoy the protection of government regulations as well.
Anonymous
January 20, 2012 @
10:38 AM
briansd1 wrote:In government, [quote=briansd1]In government, there’s is at least transparency. What they get paid, we eventually find out.
In the private sector, when there are constraints, and when people have no choice but to use the services, the abuses can be much more egregious. And because the records are private, we never find out.[/quote]
If “people have no choice but to use the service” then it’s not “private sector.”
Are you talking defense contractors and public utilities? They are a hybrid.
I don’t care what people in the pure private sector get paid in total. For my realtor, doctor, mechanic, etc. I only care about the price I pay for my personal business interactions with them. If they are making a killing off of everyone else, whatever.
Transparency in the public sector? Are you kidding? You need to have an accounting degree and would have to make it your part time job to figure out the actual cost of compensation for your local public safety or CalTrans employee. One of the big reasons there is a huge debate right now about public pensions is that nobody can even agree on how much they actually cost.
sdrealtor
January 20, 2012 @
10:51 AM
FWIW I voted for mortgage FWIW I voted for mortgage brokers as I know many that make several times what we even the most succesful realtors make. What do mortgage brokers actually produce? The market produces the interest rates and they just handle the administrative tasks associated with a loan. If rates drop they refi you and make another commission. If you have a bunch of serial refinancers (FLU????) you can earn a mid 6 figure living in a falling interest rate environment without too much effort. Of course in a rising interest rate environment they can make nothing but the question was relative to what they produce.
Anonymous
January 20, 2012 @
10:53 AM
The world has always hated The world has always hated financial middlemen.
Sometimes with very bad outcomes.
(Yes, I just went Goodwin)
briansd1
January 20, 2012 @
10:54 AM
pri_dk wrote:
If “people have [quote=pri_dk]
If “people have no choice but to use the service” then it’s not “private sector.”
Are you talking defense contractors and public utilities? They are a hybrid.
[/quote]
Defense contractors have free reigns for sure. but they are not on the list as a category.
[quote=pri_dk]
I don’t care what people in the pure private sector get paid in total. For my realtor, doctor, mechanic, etc. I only care about the price I pay for my personal business interactions with them. If they are making a killing off of everyone else, whatever.
[/quote]
the question was “relative to what they do” in general.
For Realtors it’s an interesting question. I know that some realtors don’t make a lot of money and some others are very well paid.
For my own personal business with a Realtor, he might be paid too much in my opinion, because I’m self-sufficient and he doesn’t have to do hand-holding. But I understand that the structure of the compensation is such that the Realtor gets to charge me for little work to compensate for doing a lot more work for others.
For my own personal interaction, government employees are the most overpaid. I don’t use the schools or the libraries, and I don’t believe in the high level of defense spending, so they are useless to me.
Anonymous
January 20, 2012 @
11:58 AM
briansd1 wrote:the question [quote=briansd1]the question was “relative to what they do” in general.
[/quote]
Correct, that was the question.
But it’s a silly question, because it’s entirely subjective what “someone does” is worth.
That’s the beauty of markets – the price is ultimately determined by everyone involved, collectively.
It’s the only way it can work. Every other system of pricing will, and has, failed.
poorgradstudent
January 20, 2012 @
10:58 AM
It seems like cheating, but It seems like cheating, but Politicians. The actual salaries collected aren’t always amazing, but let’s face it, once someone has been successfully elected once they are on the gravy train for life in terms of speaking fees or getting cushy jobs as “consultants” for various industries.
markmax33
January 20, 2012 @
12:20 PM
I know of fire fighters that I know of fire fighters that haven’t had to respond to a fire in 10 years and bill double OT all the time and sleep for most of the shift and have no other duties. That seems pretty sweet.
Your real answer is going to be to find the most GOV intervened job and start there. I would say many environmental positions actually provide negative value because there are 6 levels of environmental regulation all looking at the same thing, trying to justify their existence and pay check. They are slowing down business in this country and sending jobs overseas to China for protecting some little insect that would have went extinct without man’s intervention to begin with. That’s actually costing the country millions of dollars per year.
Anonymous
January 20, 2012 @
12:32 PM
markmax33 wrote:I know of [quote=markmax33]I know of fire fighters that haven’t had to respond to a fire in 10 years and bill double OT all the time and sleep for most of the shift and have no other duties.[/quote]
No you don’t.
CA renter
January 20, 2012 @
4:46 PM
pri_dk wrote:markmax33 [quote=pri_dk][quote=markmax33]I know of fire fighters that haven’t had to respond to a fire in 10 years and bill double OT all the time and sleep for most of the shift and have no other duties.[/quote]
No you don’t.[/quote]
Just saw this after I wrote my post.
Thank you, Pri. Finally, we can agree on something!
markmax33
January 21, 2012 @
10:21 AM
pri_dk wrote:markmax33 [quote=pri_dk][quote=markmax33]I know of fire fighters that haven’t had to respond to a fire in 10 years and bill double OT all the time and sleep for most of the shift and have no other duties.[/quote]
No you don’t.[/quote]
100% I do. Why would I say it?
Anonymous
January 20, 2012 @
12:32 PM
dup dup
CA renter
January 20, 2012 @
4:44 PM
markmax33 wrote:I know of [quote=markmax33]I know of fire fighters that haven’t had to respond to a fire in 10 years and bill double OT all the time and sleep for most of the shift and have no other duties. That seems pretty sweet.
[/quote]
I’m calling bullshit.
1. If they haven’t responded to a fire in 10 years, name the department and let’s dig up the stats, shall we?
Not only that, but fire is just one type of call. Most of their calls are medical aids. How many of those are they running?
2. There is no such thing as “double O/T.”
3. No firefighter is allowed to “sleep for most of their shift,” nor do they “have no other duties.”
This is the kind of shit that gets put out there on the internet, and then equally stupid people (who are afraid of reading and research) jump on it, repeat it, and soon enough…it’s quoted as “fact.”
If you’re going to post (and this goes to those who don’t even understand how pensions are paid or how/why they are earned, or what concessions were made in order to get them, etc.), at least know what you’re talking about. Otherwise, STFU.
no_such_reality
January 20, 2012 @
7:57 PM
CA renter][quote=markmax33 [quote=CA renter][quote=markmax33]
3. No firefighter is allowed to “sleep for most of their shift,” nor do they “have no other duties.”
.[/quote]
How much of their shift do they get to sleep for?
Did San Deigo do away with the 24 hours on scheduling where they are paid to be in the station and on-call and expected to respond, but they do not have to be awak for the full 24 hours.
3. No firefighter is allowed to “sleep for most of their shift,” nor do they “have no other duties.”
.[/quote]
How much of their shift do they get to sleep for?
Did San Deigo do away with the 24 hours on scheduling where they are paid to be in the station and on-call and expected to respond, but they do not have to be awak for the full 24 hours.[/quote]
I didn’t say where it was. It’s not in San Diego. It 100% happens.
svelte
January 20, 2012 @
3:09 PM
Why aren’t CEOs on the list? Why aren’t CEOs on the list? They get my vote.
Allan from Fallbrook
January 20, 2012 @
6:40 PM
svelte wrote:Why aren’t CEOs [quote=svelte]Why aren’t CEOs on the list? They get my vote.[/quote]
Svelte: +1 on that. You want to truly discuss the issue of income inequality, that’s the first place to look and it opens up the whole can of worms on incestuous boards of directors voting massive (and completely out of line with performance) pay and (more important) stock/option packages.
There are literally hundreds of publicly owned US companies with outrageous CEO (and C-level) compensation packages that confer unbelievable sums of money for subpar performances.
I’d also point to private equity groups (yes, like Bain), hedgies and consultancies (think McKinsey & Co) where this type of outsize compensation leads directly to value and asset destruction (think Lampert and Kmart/Sears). Essentially people being paid to destroy companies and jobs while transferring millions to those responsible for that destruction.
Coronita
January 20, 2012 @
6:59 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=svelte]Why aren’t CEOs on the list? They get my vote.[/quote]
Svelte: +1 on that. You want to truly discuss the issue of income inequality, that’s the first place to look and it opens up the whole can of worms on incestuous boards of directors voting massive (and completely out of line with performance) pay and (more important) stock/option packages.
There are literally hundreds of publicly owned US companies with outrageous CEO (and C-level) compensation packages that confer unbelievable sums of money for subpar performances.
I’d also point to private equity groups (yes, like Bain), hedgies and consultancies (think McKinsey & Co) where this type of outsize compensation leads directly to value and asset destruction (think Lampert and Kmart/Sears). Essentially people being paid to destroy companies and jobs while transferring millions to those responsible for that destruction.[/quote]
Because we already know they are overpaid.
CA renter
January 20, 2012 @
8:43 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=svelte]Why aren’t CEOs on the list? They get my vote.[/quote]
Svelte: +1 on that. You want to truly discuss the issue of income inequality, that’s the first place to look and it opens up the whole can of worms on incestuous boards of directors voting massive (and completely out of line with performance) pay and (more important) stock/option packages.
There are literally hundreds of publicly owned US companies with outrageous CEO (and C-level) compensation packages that confer unbelievable sums of money for subpar performances.
I’d also point to private equity groups (yes, like Bain), hedgies and consultancies (think McKinsey & Co) where this type of outsize compensation leads directly to value and asset destruction (think Lampert and Kmart/Sears). Essentially people being paid to destroy companies and jobs while transferring millions to those responsible for that destruction.[/quote]
Could not agree more.
briansd1
January 20, 2012 @
10:07 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=svelte]Why aren’t CEOs on the list? They get my vote.[/quote]
Svelte: +1 on that. You want to truly discuss the issue of income inequality, that’s the first place to look and it opens up the whole can of worms on incestuous boards of directors voting massive (and completely out of line with performance) pay and (more important) stock/option packages.
There are literally hundreds of publicly owned US companies with outrageous CEO (and C-level) compensation packages that confer unbelievable sums of money for subpar performances.
I’d also point to private equity groups (yes, like Bain), hedgies and consultancies (think McKinsey & Co) where this type of outsize compensation leads directly to value and asset destruction (think Lampert and Kmart/Sears). Essentially people being paid to destroy companies and jobs while transferring millions to those responsible for that destruction.[/quote]
I also agree. But CEOs weren’t on the list.
But contrast that to what pri_dk said earlier:
[quote=pri_dk]Econ 101: If there are no market restrictions on a good or service, the price will be exactly what it is “worth” to society.
In a truly free labor market, nobody is over/underpaid.
[/quote]
I don’t believe in a perfectly free market.
Supposedly, if Apple can sell millions of iPhones, the exec could pay themselves anything they want.
Or supposedly, if a movie star can sell tens of millions of tickets, that star could make hundreds of millions.
I think there are big flaws in our society. There’s the herd mentality, momentum, psychology and structural problems that crowd out competiion and impede that ideally free market
I don’t know what the solutions are, but I think that it’s neither right nor natural that certain people enjoy such disproportionate amounts of wealth.
no_such_reality
January 21, 2012 @
8:15 AM
briansd1 wrote:
I don’t know [quote=briansd1]
I don’t know what the solutions are, but I think that it’s neither right nor natural that certain people enjoy such disproportionate amounts of wealth.[/quote]
I both agree and disagree.
I am a fan of the scandavian system for fines. I find income taxes appalling, primarily because the definition of income is so capricious.
I’d love to see the country move to an asset tax and eliminate income taxes. You know, those things everybody hates, like Vehicle License fee. Put it on tangible and intangible assets. If it has a record of ownership, asset tax. Everybody would pay the same rate. And you pay for having more stuff or assets.
I find the incestous board/C-level relationships are many firms appalling. Compensation is a joke. Frankly, the more firms I’ve worked for, the more disdain I have for the C-level.
IMHO, the C-level has forgotten, they are an EMPLOYEE. I don’t mind founders like the kids of Google getting outrageously rich. Gates too, although Gates’ story is a little muddier. However, the current corporate hack at the top of most of the publicly traded larger companies are just EMPLOYEEs. They don’t think it.
Then we have the other side, the Kobe’s and Oprah’s. Oprah made herself, she’s tough, if she says buy a book, two million people march out and buy the book. Then you have Kobe, yeah, he was born with talent, but he also worked his backside off. Tiger too. Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift? Well… the line got blurry on are they just a corporate product or bust their butt. Probably both.
In the end, your kids need to understand the herd and the appstore. There are 7+ billion on the planet and soon they all can get to the appstore.
Allan from Fallbrook
January 21, 2012 @
10:06 AM
briansd1 wrote:
I don’t [quote=briansd1]
I don’t believe in a perfectly free market.
Supposedly, if Apple can sell millions of iPhones, the exec could pay themselves anything they want.
Or supposedly, if a movie star can sell tens of millions of tickets, that star could make hundreds of millions.
I think there are big flaws in our society. There’s the herd mentality, momentum, psychology and structural problems that crowd out competiion and impede that ideally free market
I don’t know what the solutions are, but I think that it’s neither right nor natural that certain people enjoy such disproportionate amounts of wealth.[/quote]
Brian: That’s because there is no such thing as a perfectly free market.
You then go on to opine that’s neither right nor natural that certain people enjoy such disproportionate amounts of wealth.
Why? Because its unfair? I think its neither right nor natural that George Clooney is better looking than I am (admittedly not by much!), but, hey, them’s the breaks. And who or what becomes the arbiter of “natural” and “right”? The gubment? A blue ribbon committee? A group of Chinese Communist apparatchiks?
If you bust your ass and you earn it, I could care less how much someone has, in terms of wealth. My point focused on those C-level execs that are being paid monstrous comp packages for subpar performance, or who are actually helping drive their company into the ground.
For a Progressive, you ain’t so big on individual liberty, are you?
svelte
January 20, 2012 @
3:10 PM
Actually, you didn’t include Actually, you didn’t include any executive titles at all on the list!! Wazzup with that flu?
no_such_reality
January 20, 2012 @
3:20 PM
I believe every category has I believe every category has overpaid people. Who doesn’t know someone that’s just being a drone at work and going through the motions?
As for Government Safety Workers and Prison Guards, to be honest, I don’t care if we need to pay them $100K. Let’s be honest about what we pay them.
It’s currently completely dishonest IMHO. I do care that they have fat pensions. I’d rather they, and every other government worker had a 401K. We could do a lavish match, at least it would be honest.
When virtually everyone that isn’t new hire is exceeding the publish max pay, there are problems.
enron_by_the_sea
January 21, 2012 @
10:26 AM
I think I am most overpaid. I think I am most overpaid. (But don’t tell that to my boss.)
outtamojo
January 21, 2012 @
11:08 AM
For all the complaints of it For all the complaints of it sucking up so much of our GDP, why no category for health care workers?
SK in CV
January 21, 2012 @
12:40 PM
outtamojo wrote:For all the [quote=outtamojo]For all the complaints of it sucking up so much of our GDP, why no category for health care workers?[/quote]
Maybe because health care workers, for the most part, don’t make any more money today than they did 20 years ago. The money in health care is not falling into the pockets of the people that actually provide the care. It’s going into the pockets of big pharma, DME and hi-tech medical equipment manufacturers, medical insurance companies, for-profit hospitals and clinics. Not the doctors, the nurses, the therapists, the technicians and other allied health care workers that actually provide the care.
patientrenter
January 21, 2012 @
5:08 PM
SK in CV wrote:outtamojo [quote=SK in CV][quote=outtamojo]For all the complaints of it sucking up so much of our GDP, why no category for health care workers?[/quote]
Maybe because health care workers, for the most part, don’t make any more money today than they did 20 years ago….
Per the NYT article, medical professionals formed 15.7% of the top 1% in 2005, the second-biggest group inside that elite 1% group. I doubt many of those “medical professionals” are nurses or EMTs. We are talking doctors here.
Per the NYT article, medical professionals formed 15.7% of the top 1% in 2005, the second-biggest group inside that elite 1 group. I doubt many of those “medical professionals” are nurses or EMTs. We are talking doctors here.[/quote]
I wonder what that % was 20 years ago. I suspect, though I certainly don’t know, that 20 years ago, medical professionals made up a higher % of that top 1%. And yes, we are talking doctors. Given the years of study they put in, particularly in comparison with every other profession, they probably should be the most highly compensated.
NotCranky
January 21, 2012 @
11:02 PM
Who are the most underpaid Who are the most underpaid people out there?
Coronita
January 21, 2012 @
11:13 PM
Jacarandoso wrote:Who are the [quote=Jacarandoso]Who are the most underpaid people out there?[/quote]
enginerds.
I was reviewing a renter prospect. He’s a line worker for an electric company (not SDGE). His hourly wage is about $38. But he regularly puts in overtime…Roughly my normal hours…Last year, he reported about $120k/year. Also, has health benefits, matching retirement/etc..Young guy….No wonder no more folks want to work as enginerds here in U.S. Folks who do labor can do just as well.
CA renter
January 22, 2012 @
12:46 AM
Jacarandoso wrote:Who are the [quote=Jacarandoso]Who are the most underpaid people out there?[/quote]
Day laborers…people who do the really hard work that most of us don’t want to do and wouldn’t do for all the money in the world, if we can help it.
Per the NYT article, medical professionals formed 15.7% of the top 1% in 2005, the second-biggest group inside that elite 1 group. I doubt many of those “medical professionals” are nurses or EMTs. We are talking doctors here.[/quote]
I wonder what that % was 20 years ago. I suspect, though I certainly don’t know, that 20 years ago, medical professionals made up a higher % of that top 1%. And yes, we are talking doctors. Given the years of study they put in, particularly in comparison with every other profession, they probably should be the most highly compensated.[/quote]
I agree 100%.
If anyone “deserves” to make really good money, it would be have to be doctors.
Per the NYT article, medical professionals formed 15.7% of the top 1% in 2005, the second-biggest group inside that elite 1 group. I doubt many of those “medical professionals” are nurses or EMTs. We are talking doctors here.[/quote]
I wonder what that % was 20 years ago. I suspect, though I certainly don’t know, that 20 years ago, medical professionals made up a higher % of that top 1%. And yes, we are talking doctors. Given the years of study they put in, particularly in comparison with every other profession, they probably should be the most highly compensated.[/quote]
I agree 100%.
If anyone “deserves” to make really good money, it would be have to be doctors.[/quote]
Oops!! You said this just afew posts back. Situational ethics at its best wouldn’t you say?
Per the NYT article, medical professionals formed 15.7% of the top 1% in 2005, the second-biggest group inside that elite 1 group. I doubt many of those “medical professionals” are nurses or EMTs. We are talking doctors here.[/quote]
I wonder what that % was 20 years ago. I suspect, though I certainly don’t know, that 20 years ago, medical professionals made up a higher % of that top 1%. And yes, we are talking doctors. Given the years of study they put in, particularly in comparison with every other profession, they probably should be the most highly compensated.[/quote]
I agree 100%.
If anyone “deserves” to make really good money, it would be have to be doctors.[/quote]
Oops!! You said this just afew posts back. Situational ethics at its best wouldn’t you say?[/quote]
Not sure what you’re referring to. Is this comment directed to me or someone else?
[edited]
Anonymous
January 22, 2012 @
1:50 AM
Realtors are the 21st century Realtors are the 21st century version of used car salesman.
scaredyclassic
January 22, 2012 @
9:51 AM
My doctor wife had a super My doctor wife had a super high pay offer but it was in Hobbs nm. (300,000/yr about 10 y ago. But the pay was like a third Of that 100,000 or a bit more in southern cal.
Dr pay is very variable.
I begged her to move to Hobbs!
Couldve been awesome.
I’d be farming pigs. And driving a big truck!
scaredyclassic
January 22, 2012 @
9:52 AM
Plus houses were kinda cheap Plus houses were kinda cheap in Hobbs.
sdrealtor
January 22, 2012 @
10:05 AM
Dr 100,000 or a bit more in Dr 100,000 or a bit more in southern cal
Fireman 150,000 (actual client living in Murrieta) in southern cal
That sounds about right
outtamojo
January 22, 2012 @
10:49 AM
MDs at 100K in So Cal? How MDs at 100K in So Cal? How about RN’s at $140K in Bay area and central coast?
scaredyclassic
January 22, 2012 @
11:11 AM
Ok 100,000 ten yes ago was on Ok 100,000 ten yes ago was on the low side but that was one 9-5 type job she interviewed for… I think 120. So let’s says half of Hobbs. Too many docs in southern calif.
The decent paying gigs nowadays require many hours…very hard work.
If I’d married her teacher/sister we’d have more money. But I couldn’t have lived with her. Nope. My kid noted the other day that he thought I had to marry my wife, that no one in the world couldve married me, cause no one else could have tolerated my weirdness.
Definitely not her sister, though, that’s true.
Coronita
January 22, 2012 @
11:24 AM
Walter..I hope you’re kidding Walter..I hope you’re kidding about your wife…
Here’s how fvcked up things are. I just re-reviewed one of the rental applicants in L.A.
Guy is late twenties.. He works for the power company..He is a linesman (I guess he lays power line and fixes them). His salary only pay last year (W2) was $115k, including overtime.. And this is at a private power company…Does not include 401k, nor does it include any other benefits that I cannot see from the applicant.
(Side note…We are rejecting the applicant…While the guy’s credit is not terrible, the spouse’s credit is ridiculously attrocious), student loan aside, the person has unsecured debt up the ying yang…
I don’t know…When manual labor jobs in this country ends up being more than doctors/engineers/technology etc, we have a serious fvcked up situation imho…
And without adieu, I present you this very interesting article in the NYT times about why there’s no way in hell high tech manufacturing jobs are ever going to come back to the U.S….
Read, my iPhone lovers… It’s a great article…Makes you definitely think twice about things…. Welcome to the sweatshops of tomorrow…. F.U. apple.
When Barack Obama joined Silicon Valley’s top luminaries for dinner in California last February, each guest was asked to come with a question for the president.
But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States?
Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.
Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.
Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.
The president’s question touched upon a central conviction at Apple. It isn’t just that workers are cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their American counterparts that “Made in the U.S.A.” is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.
…..
Apple employs 43,000 people in the United States and 20,000 overseas, a small fraction of the over 400,000 American workers at General Motors in the 1950s, or the hundreds of thousands at General Electric in the 1980s. Many more people work for Apple’s contractors: an additional 700,000 people engineer, build and assemble iPads, iPhones and Apple’s other products. But almost none of them work in the United States. Instead, they work for foreign companies in Asia, Europe and elsewhere, at factories that almost all electronics designers rely upon to build their wares.
¶ “Apple’s an example of why it’s so hard to create middle-class jobs in the U.S. now,” said Jared Bernstein, who until last year was an economic adviser to the White House.
¶ “If it’s the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.”
¶ Apple executives say that going overseas, at this point, is their only option. One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhone manufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.
¶ A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.
¶ “The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.”
scaredyclassic
January 22, 2012 @
2:28 PM
Well, linemen do really Well, linemen do really well.. I have a few in my extended family.
There are low paid doc jobs out there for those who won’t take call.
And call sucks!!!!
CA renter
January 22, 2012 @
3:16 PM
If a lineman screws up on the If a lineman screws up on the job, it’s very possible that someone (or many people) can get killed.
Note how “labor organinzations and safety standards” change things for the better.
“In electricity’s early days, about one in four line workers suffered fatal job-related injuries, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Fatalities are rare today, but line workers still focus on safety first.
Lakeland Electric’s state-certified apprenticeship program for linemen takes four years to complete and includes rigorous training requirements, said Robert Padgett, who runs the program’s training center.”
“Linemen often work long hours, especially when bad weather causes problems. When wind tore down several power poles on U.S. 98 South in June, Goostree and other employees were at the site immediately and worked through the night. Goostree worked 25 hours straight supervising the repairs.”
Pay isn’t necessarily determined by the amount of college education one has. It’s also determined by the physical requirements for the job, the number of qualified people who can do the job, how dangerous it is, whether or not it requires a lot of traveling, etc.
Doctors (especially surgeons) are some of the best paid people out there, as it should be. But other than that, there are a number of people who are paid very well who do not have degrees.
As you know, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Steve Jobs didn’t graduate from college, and they’ve certainly made more money than most of us could ever dream of. Of course, without linemen, we probably never would have heard of these folks. 😉
There are many actors, entrepreneurs, salespeople, etc. who make a lot of money and don’t have degrees, and many don’t even have above-average I.Q.s.
There are many reasons why people make exceptionally good money, and college is only one factor. As we all know, having a college degree doesn’t guarantee that you’ll be making a decent living, nor should it.
————–
As far as the tech jobs not coming back…this is exactly what manufacturing workers have been dealing with for decades. It sucks, big-time, but unless Americans wake up and grasp what’s going on, it will only continue until it sucks down every industry. Nobody is immune.
We are all going to be living in “work dormitories” where we can be stirred up in the middle of the night with a biscuit and tea so that we can begin another 12-18 hour shift for $2.00/day. Time to wake up and FORCE our politicians to fix our trade and tax policies so that our consumer dollars support companies and countries that protect workers and the environment. Until then, BUY AMERICAN!
scaredyclassic
January 22, 2012 @
4:00 PM
He’ll, a kid in my Relatives He’ll, a kid in my Relatives linemen training class died climbing a pole in class.
Negligence on part of school. Supposed to be a safety at the top that stops you.
Not there, and his rope went up n over and he fell to his death.
Linemen are serious dudes.
Tshirt seen at family function:
even firemen need heroes (local union linemen info in smaller print)
ever heard of the linemen rodeos?
CA renter
January 22, 2012 @
4:54 PM
One more note about the One more note about the lineman’s pay: if he worked a lot of overtime, $100K+ isn’t at all surprising. Those guys are the ones out there when there are storms, fires, floods, etc. I’m sure there is a lot of O/T involved, and it would likely be in situations and conditions that very few people would want to work in.
svelte
January 23, 2012 @
8:20 AM
CA Renter wrote:If a lineman
[quote=CA Renter]If a lineman screws up on the job, it’s very possible that someone (or many people) can get killed.
[/quote]
[quote=walterwhite]He’ll, a kid in my Relatives linemen training class died climbing a pole in class…Linemen are serious dudes.
[/quote]
Most people don’t realize that their death rate is much higher than policemen or firemen. It’s 35 per 100,000 workers.
They aren’t broken out as a separate category in the official US Gov stats, which shows the following as having the top 10 death rates:
Military would be in top 10, but their stats aren’t included in the US gov figures.
Anonymous
January 23, 2012 @
9:03 AM
svelte wrote:Note firemen [quote=svelte]Note firemen aren’t in the top 10.[/quote]
We’ve discussed the stats on “dangerous” jobs here before. The fact that many more jobs are more dangerous than firefighters is well-established. But few people are aware of this data.
Public perception is out of whack with reality (although they do have TV shows about fishermen and loggers now, maybe that will help…)
[quote]Military would be in top 10, but their stats aren’t included in the US gov figures.[/quote]
It may not be as high as you think. There are well over a million people on active duty. The actual probability of any single person in the military being killed is incredibly low (of course this varies tremendously with role and location.)
Statistically, the most dangerous “job” in the past decade has probably been Iraqi Civilian.
CA renter
January 23, 2012 @
7:01 PM
pri_dk wrote:svelte [quote=pri_dk][quote=svelte]Note firemen aren’t in the top 10.[/quote]
We’ve discussed the stats on “dangerous” jobs here before. The fact that many more jobs are more dangerous than firefighters is well-established. But few people are aware of this data.
Public perception is out of whack with reality (although they do have TV shows about fishermen and loggers now, maybe that will help…)
[quote]Military would be in top 10, but their stats aren’t included in the US gov figures.[/quote]
It may not be as high as you think. There are well over a million people on active duty. The actual probability of any single person in the military being killed is incredibly low (of course this varies tremendously with role and location.)
Statistically, the most dangerous “job” in the past decade has probably been Iraqi Civilian.[/quote]
Firefighting was one of the most dangerous jobs, but the statistics have been improving over time. Do you know WHY firefighting now ranks lower than these other professions WRT how “dangerous” it is? (Hint: it’s for the same reasons electrical workers have lower injury/fatality rates than they used to.)
CA renter
January 22, 2012 @
8:40 PM
flu wrote:
Read, my iPhone [quote=flu]
Read, my iPhone lovers… It’s a great article…Makes you definitely think twice about things…. Welcome to the sweatshops of tomorrow…. F.U. apple.
When Barack Obama joined Silicon Valley’s top luminaries for dinner in California last February, each guest was asked to come with a question for the president.
But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States?
Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.
Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.
Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.
The president’s question touched upon a central conviction at Apple. It isn’t just that workers are cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their American counterparts that “Made in the U.S.A.” is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.
…..
Apple employs 43,000 people in the United States and 20,000 overseas, a small fraction of the over 400,000 American workers at General Motors in the 1950s, or the hundreds of thousands at General Electric in the 1980s. Many more people work for Apple’s contractors: an additional 700,000 people engineer, build and assemble iPads, iPhones and Apple’s other products. But almost none of them work in the United States. Instead, they work for foreign companies in Asia, Europe and elsewhere, at factories that almost all electronics designers rely upon to build their wares.
¶ “Apple’s an example of why it’s so hard to create middle-class jobs in the U.S. now,” said Jared Bernstein, who until last year was an economic adviser to the White House.
¶ “If it’s the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.”
¶ Apple executives say that going overseas, at this point, is their only option. One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhone manufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.
¶ A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.
¶ “The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.”
[/quote]
“Apple’s margins have widened at the expense of its main supplier as Foxconn Technology Group cuts prices to retain orders for the iPhone and iPad. The profit spread at Hon Hai Precision Industry, Foxconn’s Taipei-listed flagship, has narrowed to 1.5 percent since the debut of the iPhone in June 2007 as Apple’s operating margin more than doubled over the past five years, surpassing 30 percent.“
“Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s margins have widened at the expense of its main supplier as Foxconn Technology Group cuts prices to retain orders for iPhones and iPads.
The CHART OF THE DAY compares the operating margins of Apple, which has surpassed 30 percent, and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Foxconn’s Taipei-listed flagship. Hon Hai’s profit spread narrowed after the iPhone debut in June 2007 and has tightened further since April 2010, when the iPad tablet computer went on sale, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Operating margin measures the profit a company makes from its core business, excluding one-time items and investment gains.
Apple’s margin has more than doubled the past five years, spurred by its smartphones and tablets, which now generate more than half of the Cupertino, California-based company’s revenue. Hon Hai has boosted its workforce, raised wages and expanded factories to keep up with demand during the same period, though not fully passing along its additional costs, the data show.
Foxconn Technology Group, which employs more than 1.1 million people worldwide, also assembles Sony Corp. televisions, Hewlett-Packard Co. computers and Microsoft Corp. game consoles.
Hon Hai’s operating margin declined in most of the quarters in which Apple’s rose and widened when its main customer’s narrowed, the data show. Taipei-based Pegatron Corp. (4938), the only other supplier of iPhones, also has seen its operating margin decline since getting orders for the handsets, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.”
Someone, please tell me again how “the free market” and “capitalism” aren’t zero-sum in many/most cases.
You’ve got to love how Apple execs claim that going overseas “is their only option.” Bullshit! How about making a smaller profit margin — while still making massive amounts of money! — so that the people who do the work are rewarded, instead.
What’s funny is that these people at the top who have sucked all the blood out of the economy will complain about how “~50% of the population doesn’t pay income taxes!” Well, DUH! You’ve taken away their income! They CAN’T pay income taxes!
Anonymous
January 23, 2012 @
8:05 AM
CA renter wrote:You’ve got to [quote=CA renter]You’ve got to love how Apple execs claim that going overseas “is their only option.” Bullshit! How about making a smaller profit margin — while still making massive amounts of money! — so that the people who do the work are rewarded, instead.[/quote]
pri_dk wrote:CA renter [quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]You’ve got to love how Apple execs claim that going overseas “is their only option.” Bullshit! How about making a smaller profit margin — while still making massive amounts of money! — so that the people who do the work are rewarded, instead.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter. Wrong is wrong, and right is right. The people who do the actual work should be rewarded at least as well as those who finance it.
an
January 25, 2012 @
11:58 AM
CA renter wrote:It doesn’t [quote=CA renter]It doesn’t matter. Wrong is wrong, and right is right. The people who do the actual work should be rewarded at least as well as those who finance it.[/quote]
I’m so glad this is not happening here in the US. I’ve lived in a country where they’ve tried this. Most people don’t like it except for those who are well connected.
sdrealtor
January 25, 2012 @
11:59 AM
So when do we declare a So when do we declare a winner?
no_such_reality
January 26, 2012 @
1:30 PM
CA renter wrote:Someone, [quote=CA renter]Someone, please tell me again how “the free market” and “capitalism” aren’t zero-sum in many/most cases.
[/quote]
Are you really that blind? The free market and capitalism creates NEW. The App Store is a good example. Tell us how that’s a zero sum game? Zero sum game means someone only gains at someone elses loss.
The second easiest place to see the free market in action, even though its heavily subsidized, is the grocery store. The more free the marketplace, the more abundant the food is. Countries with corruption and heavy hands in the market invariably limit over-all food production.
CA renter
January 26, 2012 @
3:13 PM
no_such_reality wrote:CA [quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter]Someone, please tell me again how “the free market” and “capitalism” aren’t zero-sum in many/most cases.
[/quote]
Are you really that blind? The free market and capitalism creates NEW. The App Store is a good example. Tell us how that’s a zero sum game? Zero sum game means someone only gains at someone elses loss.
The second easiest place to see the free market in action, even though its heavily subsidized, is the grocery store. The more free the marketplace, the more abundant the food is. Countries with corruption and heavy hands in the market invariably limit over-all food production.[/quote]
***Sometimes*** it creates new markets, expands production capacity, and/or makes things more efficient.
Lately, the “free market” has been more about buying and selling assets at artificially inflated prices (zero sum) than about “growing” anything of value.
bobby
January 26, 2012 @
5:55 PM
CA renter [quote=CA renter]
***Sometimes*** it creates new markets, expands production capacity, and/or makes things more efficient.
Lately, the “free market” has been more about buying and selling assets at artificially inflated prices (zero sum) than about “growing” anything of value.[/quote]
define “inflated prices”.
price is only as high as the buyer will bear.
there’s no zero sum game here.
Reality
January 26, 2012 @
8:50 PM
bobby wrote:
define “inflated [quote=bobby]
define “inflated prices”.
price is only as high as the buyer will bear.
there’s no zero sum game here.[/quote]
Prices are inflated when demand is artificially inflated.
Did you miss the housing bubble?
CA renter
January 27, 2012 @
3:37 AM
bobby wrote:CA renter [quote=bobby][quote=CA renter]
***Sometimes*** it creates new markets, expands production capacity, and/or makes things more efficient.
Lately, the “free market” has been more about buying and selling assets at artificially inflated prices (zero sum) than about “growing” anything of value.[/quote]
define “inflated prices”.
price is only as high as the buyer will bear.
there’s no zero sum game here.[/quote]
When massive amounts of leverage are used by speculators to buy up assets they do not personally need, you get “artificially inflated prices.”
ucodegen
January 25, 2012 @
11:48 AM
How about adding CEOs to the How about adding CEOs to the list. (this is why I chose ‘other’)
KSMountain
January 25, 2012 @
11:49 PM
Top professional baseball Top professional baseball players? Was A-Rod really worth $400M?
I support the free market – so I guess I have to grin and bear it. But sometimes it is amazing what the market will pay for certain skills.
all
January 26, 2012 @
9:04 AM
KSMountain wrote:Top [quote=KSMountain]Top professional baseball players? Was A-Rod really worth $400M?
I support the free market – so I guess I have to grin and bear it. But sometimes it is amazing what the market will pay for certain skills.[/quote]
There are kids digging in mines and entire families surviving a month on less than the cost of a ticket for a preseason Chargers game. You can feed a kid for a month for the cost of a beer on the said game.
I’m happy to be on this side of the imbalance, but it always feels weird to hear people bragging about ‘working hard’ when the hard work means sitting in meetings for 6 hours/day or having three dinners in one night in upscale LV restaurants during some conference.
Anonymous
January 26, 2012 @
3:22 PM
Thanks for clearing that up, Thanks for clearing that up, CAR.
Somehow I was under the impression that the millions of people that go to work everyday building stuff, engineering stuff, fixing stuff, inventing stuff, cleaning stuff, protecting stuff, moving stuff to where it’s needed – and otherwise doing stuff – were actually creating value.
Now I know that they are all just taking from others, and it’s all “zero sum.”
CA renter
January 27, 2012 @
3:34 AM
pri_dk wrote:Thanks for [quote=pri_dk]Thanks for clearing that up, CAR.
Somehow I was under the impression that the millions of people that go to work everyday building stuff, engineering stuff, fixing stuff, inventing stuff, cleaning stuff, protecting stuff, moving stuff to where it’s needed – and otherwise doing stuff – were actually creating value.
Now I know that they are all just taking from others, and it’s all “zero sum.”[/quote]
Lordy, Pri! Are you just trying to troll, or what?
It should be 100% clear by now that I strongly favor **workers’** rights, while opposing all the smoke-and-mirrors machinations on Wall Street.
The people who do the things in your list are totally deserving of what they get and more (IMHO). But they are not the ones making huge sums of money for buying and selling **existing** assets (ZERO SUM!).
The people who buy and sell existing assets — without any need for those assets — are the ones I’m talking about. People who “flip” houses; those who buy and sell gold, corn, oil, etc. without ever expecting to take delivery; those who buy and sell stocks for very short periods of time simply to take advantage of short-term moves (cap gains)…these are the people I’m talking about. (Yes, I’ve made a lot of money this way, too, but at least I can admit that it did NOTHING to benefit society.)
It’s one thing to have market makers to provide some additional liquidity — and the benefits of that can be debated — but we do not need the majority of our trades to be carried out by people who do not produce and have no intrinsic need for the assets they are trading. Add massive leverage and completely lopsided wealth accumulation to the mix, and it becomes even more damaging. This type of “investing” is sucking our country dry.
no_such_reality
January 27, 2012 @
9:08 AM
CA renter wrote:It should be [quote=CA renter]It should be 100% clear by now that I strongly favor **workers’** rights, while opposing all the smoke-and-mirrors machinations on Wall Street.
[/quote]
No, that’s not clear at all. Statements like “The people who do the actual work should be rewarded at least as well as those who finance it.
” really sound a lot like “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!” which is Marx’s famous line
Let’s look back in time and Henry Ford. Ford, had a good idea, paying a decent wage. Your statement seems like you’re saying the workers should make as much as those evil people funding the company. BTW, the successful Ford company is actually, the third Ford company, the first two of which burned money like it reichmarks in the 1930s.
Simple questions? Should Ford, the founder make more than the guy putting the lug nut on? To me the answer is a simple yet.
Should Ford’s Partner, Malcomson, who brought all the money to make it Ford company V2.0 possible make as much as Ford? To me, again, the answer is yes.
Should the 12 investors, that Malcomson brought in through another to make Ford V3 make as much as Malcomson and Ford? Again the answer is yes.
It’s really no different than me buying a house and renting it to you.
That all said, the Financial sector you rail against represents 1.4% of the economy.
CA renter
January 28, 2012 @
2:14 AM
no_such_reality wrote:CA [quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter]It should be 100% clear by now that I strongly favor **workers’** rights, while opposing all the smoke-and-mirrors machinations on Wall Street.
[/quote]
No, that’s not clear at all. Statements like “The people who do the actual work should be rewarded at least as well as those who finance it.
” really sound a lot like “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!” which is Marx’s famous line
Let’s look back in time and Henry Ford. Ford, had a good idea, paying a decent wage. Your statement seems like you’re saying the workers should make as much as those evil people funding the company. BTW, the successful Ford company is actually, the third Ford company, the first two of which burned money like it reichmarks in the 1930s.
Simple questions? Should Ford, the founder make more than the guy putting the lug nut on? To me the answer is a simple yet.
Should Ford’s Partner, Malcomson, who brought all the money to make it Ford company V2.0 possible make as much as Ford? To me, again, the answer is yes.
Should the 12 investors, that Malcomson brought in through another to make Ford V3 make as much as Malcomson and Ford? Again the answer is yes.
It’s really no different than me buying a house and renting it to you.
That all said, the Financial sector you rail against represents 1.4% of the economy.[/quote]
IMHO, in your example, Ford should make more than the line workers (of course! — but how much more?), but the investors should not.
Of course, this is entirely subjective. The only way we can really know what “the market” decides is if a reasonable balance of power exists between labor and capital. Without unions, it’s not possible, because unchecked capital always decides where capital goes (back to the investors/wealthy/powerful).
While you might disagree with Marx, there is no question that he was one of the most brilliant “philosophical economists” the world has ever known. He well understood the causes of our current financial crisis and tried to warn about the very situation we find ourselves in today.
—————-
“The financial industry was around 1.5% of GDP in the mid-19th century. The first large increase between 1880 to 1900 corresponds to the financing of railroads and early heavy industries.
The second big increase between 1918 and 1933 corresponds to the financing of the Electricity revolution, as well as automobile and pharmaceutical companies. GE did its IPO in 1913, GM in 1920 and Procter&Gamble in 1932. Key discoveries of the 1920s and 1930s, such as insulin and penicillin, became mass-manufactured and distributed.
After a continuous collapse in the 1930s and 40s, the GDP share of finance and insurance industries was down to only 2.5% of GDP in 1947. It recovered slowly and was mostly stable at around 4% until the late 1970s, and then grew quickly to reach 8.3% of GDP in 2006.”
BTW, did you know that the mass production of penicillin was made possible by the U.S. govt? More of that “unproductive” govt spending at work…for the benefit of mankind.
“Large-scale commercial production of penicillin during the 1940s opened the era of antibiotics and is recognized as one of the great advances in civilization. The discovery of penicillin and the recognition of its therapeutic potential occurred in England, while discovering how to mass-produce the drug occurred in the US — at the Peoria lab [USDA].”
The 2011 GDP estimate for the US is around $15 trillion dollars, most of which was private-sector production (i.e. capitalist businesses.)
Please explain to us how trillions of dollars in value are produced every year in this “zero sum” system?
CA renter
January 28, 2012 @
2:05 AM
pri_dk wrote:CAR,
The 2011 [quote=pri_dk]CAR,
The 2011 GDP estimate for the US is around $15 trillion dollars, most of which was private-sector production (i.e. capitalist businesses.)
Please explain to us how trillions of dollars in value are produced every year in this “zero sum” system?[/quote]
GDP numbers do not necessarily reflect “productivity” in an economy. If you buy a house for $100K and then sell that house for $200K, it looks like GDP “growth,” but no production has taken place.
Multiply the effects of asset trading during a credit expansion, and it looks like productivity is off the charts, when in reality, no/very little extra production is taking place. (Lots of details about the kind of production that is encouraged by this type of “investment,” but I’m trying to keep it simple here — think boom/bust cycles.)
As some point, if credit expansion stops and asset prices begin to decline, it can look like “productivity” is falling off a cliff, when in reality, productivity might be stagnant or falling only slightly. I believe one can make the case that productivity can actually be increasing when GDP is decreasing if the cause of the decline is a credit contraction affecting mostly asset prices. If the credit contraction primarily affects only speculative asset purchases, you can have an improving economy (for most American workers) when GDP numbers are declining.
There are two main types of “investing”: speculative purchases of existing assets, and investments that affect production capacity (which often include government investments/expenditures, BTW). The first type of “investing” is zero-sum, while the second type of investing leads to increased productivity.
You can have GDP growth without increased productivity, and it is almost always zero-sum. Unfortunately, this is the type of “investing” that has been encouraged lately, and I firmly believe it is one of the main reasons we are experiencing the weak economic conditions of late.
………
BTW, I have a question that has been nagging at me for years, and would love to hear from someone who is well-versed in the nuances of GDP statistics.
Government spending accounts for the “G” (government spending) in GDP calculations, but the money they pay to employees is usually spent right back into the economy as “C” (private consumption). How do they account for what would appear to be (nearly) double-counting of government spending in these two categories? Am I missing something?
SK in CV
January 28, 2012 @
6:16 PM
CA renter wrote:
GDP numbers [quote=CA renter]
GDP numbers do not necessarily reflect “productivity” in an economy. If you buy a house for $100K and then sell that house for $200K, it looks like GDP “growth,” but no production has taken place.
[/quote]
I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure new home sales go into the GDP calculation. But on resales I think only the commissions and other fees do. Not the entire sales price.
I’m not saying GDP is a perfect measurement. But including full sales price of resale homes would throw it way way off.
CA renter
January 28, 2012 @
9:19 PM
SK in CV wrote:CA renter [quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
GDP numbers do not necessarily reflect “productivity” in an economy. If you buy a house for $100K and then sell that house for $200K, it looks like GDP “growth,” but no production has taken place.
[/quote]
I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure new home sales go into the GDP calculation. But on resales I think only the commissions and other fees do. Not the entire sales price.
I’m not saying GDP is a perfect measurement. But including full sales price of resale homes would throw it way way off.[/quote]
Agreed, but where can we find out what they are including in the numbers? Are you sure that they aren’t including sales of existing assets like homes, agricultural commodities, etc.? What about (existing) stocks and bonds? Are they not included as “investments”? How do they differentiate between existing assets and new production? I’d hate to be the poor schlump who has to figure out these details.
CA renter
January 29, 2012 @
4:05 AM
Found it. They use rental Found it. They use rental equivalence for people who’ve purchased existing homes. I guess that makes sense, especially since that’s how they calculate housing costs in the CPI calculations.
My mistake, they do not include the price paid for existing assets, only for the price paid for some of the services provided in those transactions. That makes much more sense.
“GDP is the market value of currently produced … There are a number of things we buy that are not the product of current production, and the value of these transactions is excluded from GDP. Missing from GDP calculations would be the value of the sales of existing homes or used cars, although the sales commissions are included because they represent payment for a currently provided service. Also excluded will be the value of antiques and classical works of art sold during the year. Similarly, when you buy stocks, bonds, or mutual funds, only the commissions / fees would be included in GDP because there is no production directly involved.”
The prices of these assets are still affected by credit conditions and whether or not speculators are buying them when they are first produced (or if speculators are in the subsequent market, pushing prices higher for initial purchasers if they are responding to “false” demand signals down the line), so it would appear that credit conditions and asset price speculation can still affect GDP in a significant way, no?
In other words, let’s say credit is expanding rapidly, especially for asset purchases (i.e., mortgages for new houses), if prices are rising rapidly like they did during the bubble, wouldn’t that make it look like “productivity” were rising, even if productivity was declining (assuming the prices are rising fast enough to mask the lower production rates)?
Example: let’s say you build 100 houses and sell them for $100K each. GDP would show $10,000,000 in housing expenditures. Let’s say that the credit market continued to expand/speculation increased, and houses sell for $200K each. You could produce only 50 houses but still show $10,000,000 in housing expenditures. IOW, productivity could be declining (making 50 houses instead of 100), but the GDP numbers reflect a “stable” economy.
Thoughts, comments, corrections?
SK in CV
January 29, 2012 @
8:00 AM
CA renter wrote:
Example: [quote=CA renter]
Example: let’s say you build 100 houses and sell them for $100K each. GDP would show $10,000,000 in housing expenditures. Let’s say that the credit market continued to expand/speculation increased, and houses sell for $200K each. You could produce only 50 houses but still show $10,000,000 in housing expenditures. IOW, productivity could be declining (making 50 houses instead of 100), but the GDP numbers reflect a “stable” economy.
Thoughts, comments, corrections?[/quote]
GDP is adjusted for inflation. Imperfect, because inflation is inconsistent across markets, and measurement of inflation itself is imperfect. Neither of those measurements (GDP and inflation) are anything more than indicators. When they’re measured the same, quarter after quarter, they will provide an accurate trend line, despite their imperfections. And the methods used do get adjusted from time to time, in order to account for changes.
Anonymous
January 30, 2012 @
5:17 AM
CA renter wrote:Thoughts, [quote=CA renter]Thoughts, comments, corrections?[/quote]
Who cares?
Even if GDP numbers are off by a few trillion dollars, your claim that the $15 trillion dollar US economy is a “zero sum” game is simple-minded nonsense.
Even if GDP numbers are off by a few trillion dollars, your claim that the $15 trillion dollar US economy is a “zero sum” game is simple-minded nonsense.[/quote]
You were the one who said “trillions of dollars…”, not I.
I’m saying that asset price speculation is almost always zero sum, and I stand by that 100%.
Anonymous
January 30, 2012 @
2:47 PM
CA renter wrote:I’m saying [quote=CA renter]I’m saying that asset price speculation is almost always zero sum, and I stand by that 100%.[/quote]
No, that’s not what you said:
[quote=CA renter]Someone, please tell me again how “the free market” and “capitalism” aren’t zero-sum in many/most cases.[/quote]
Are you really so clueless that you believe that our entire free market/capitalist economy is nothing more than “asset price speculation?”
CA renter
January 30, 2012 @
9:16 PM
pri_dk wrote:CA renter [quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]I’m saying that asset price speculation is almost always zero sum, and I stand by that 100%.[/quote]
No, that’s not what you said:
[quote=CA renter]Someone, please tell me again how “the free market” and “capitalism” aren’t zero-sum in many/most cases.[/quote]
Are you really so clueless that you believe that our entire free market/capitalist economy is nothing more than “asset price speculation?”[/quote]
“Clueless” is thinking that “the market” will take care of itself without causing tremendous damage to our economy and society. It’s never happened, and it never will.
Yes, asset price speculation is a very large part of our economy these days. It is not productive. Again, I stand by what I’ve said.
no_such_reality
January 31, 2012 @
9:34 PM
CA renter wrote:Yes, asset [quote=CA renter]Yes, asset price speculation is a very large part of our economy these days. It is not productive. Again, I stand by what I’ve said.[/quote]
All banking activites, including the Federal Reserve, Mortgage Loans, Credit Cards, personal loans (car loans) are 4%.
Asset speculations, is 1.4%.
sdrealtor
January 31, 2012 @
9:44 PM
Just curious as to how that Just curious as to how that compares to public sector salaries+benies
CA renter
January 31, 2012 @
10:51 PM
sdr,
According to NSR’s sdr,
According to NSR’s linked chart, compensation for those in the FIRE industry increased 81% from 1998 to 2010, while compensation for govt employees increased 67%. (Please check my numbers, as I just did a quick calculation.)
It’s also interesting to check out the “gross operating surplus” numbers in that chart. Looks like the FIRE industry is making a huge profit relative to the other more “productive” industries. Again, just a quick glance, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
sdrealtor
January 31, 2012 @
11:08 PM
dupe dupe
temeculaguy
February 1, 2012 @
12:04 AM
The most overpaid person is The most overpaid person is the one that likes their job and would do it for free even if they won the lottery. Everyone else is on a sliding scale from there.
I had that job, it never felt like work and I was so good at it. They had to make me take my vacation time and often times I lost it because I didn’t use it. But I’m getting older and my kids are entering college so I took a higher paying position/promotion and on Friday I get to start a special diet to see if I can avoid taking medication for my new found friend, hypertension. I have the same employer, work in the same industry, but my higher pay feels like a lower reward. 2008 Tg would tell tell 2012 Tg to stay put. I fall into one of those categories that you are voting on and I can honestly say that even within each category, it depends on what they actually do during their day.
When i was a “worker” and a “supervisor” I thought the executives had it so easy. They had all the trappings, the status, the pay, and all they did was go to meetings, sit behind a desk and act cool. I was wrong. Be careful of who you envy and who you demonize. I am not a wall street CEO, but I stopped hating them. They probably don’t sleep well either.
no_such_reality
February 1, 2012 @
7:05 AM
CA renter [quote=CA renter]sdr,
According to NSR’s linked chart, compensation for those in the FIRE industry increased 81% from 1998 to 2010, while compensation for govt employees increased 67%. (Please check my numbers, as I just did a quick calculation.)
It’s also interesting to check out the “gross operating surplus” numbers in that chart. Looks like the FIRE industry is making a huge profit relative to the other more “productive” industries. Again, just a quick glance, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]
I see Government employee compensation increased 81% (LINE 87). I see their wages and salary increased 69.8% however fed gov emps increased 103%. Supplements to wages increased 120%. (line 275) and is 40% of wages. Fed increased 145%.
I’ll also note the FIRE compensation total is 40% that of Government and supplements is 25% of the Government total. Growth in FIRE supplements was 93%.
Anonymous
February 1, 2012 @
7:34 AM
CA renter wrote:According to [quote=CA renter]According to NSR’s linked chart, compensation for those in the FIRE industry increased 81% from 1998 to 2010, while compensation for govt employees increased 67%.[/quote]
How long do you pour over this data, ignoring the overwhelming evidence against your case, in hopes of finding the one detail that can support your inconsistent arguments?
And you are changing the subject yet again. First it was “our economy is zero sum.” Then it was “asset speculation provides no value” – (BTW, “asset speculation” is a job invented in your own mind. Nobody does “asset speculation” for a living.)
Now we are back to the evil “FIRE” industry – you know, that 2% of the economy that consists mainly of public-sector pension fund managers, life insurance companies that provide employee benefits, your local realtor who must frequently miss their kids’ baseball games in hopes of getting a paycheck this month, and a few miscellaneous rouges with names like Rich T.
In your deluded world, these folks are destroying our society and stripping the hard-working public employee masses from their well-deserved salaries (which somehow continue to be higher than everyone else who goes to work every day.)
And how are you so sure this is happening? Because of one obscure statistic that shows that maybe some of these “FIRE” folks are actually making a living.
It’s wonderful story for the paranoid, hysterical, and bitter. It just has no basis in fact or reality.
an
February 1, 2012 @
12:05 AM
sdrealtor wrote:Just curious [quote=sdrealtor]Just curious as to how that compares to public sector salaries+benies[/quote]
Is this what you’re referring to?
(former)FormerSanDiegan
February 1, 2012 @
1:25 PM
CA renter wrote:
I’m saying [quote=CA renter]
I’m saying that asset price speculation is almost always zero sum, and I stand by that 100%.[/quote]
If it is always zero sum then by definition it cannot do any net harm to the economy.
Anonymous
January 30, 2012 @
3:52 AM
Baseball players, Most Baseball players, Most football players, all basketball players. After that, Actors, rock stars, and reality show “stars.”
no_such_reality
February 1, 2012 @
6:48 AM
Okay, CA, hypothetical for Okay, CA, hypothetical for you.
Say I buy a house. I decide to rent it out. How much should I make?
It’s a very simple question.
Now, let’s say over the next nineteen years, I buy one more house each year so that I have twenty. Shouldn’t I make 20X the answer above?
20 more years later, I buy 40 more houses, shouldn’t I make 60x?
Or should I just stop buying houses and providing people places to live?
It’s that simple, if I don’t buy the houses, like the last few years, the construction industry falls off a cliff and the homes stop being built.
CA renter
February 2, 2012 @
12:32 AM
no_such_reality wrote:Okay, [quote=no_such_reality]Okay, CA, hypothetical for you.
Say I buy a house. I decide to rent it out. How much should I make?
It’s a very simple question.
Now, let’s say over the next nineteen years, I buy one more house each year so that I have twenty. Shouldn’t I make 20X the answer above?
20 more years later, I buy 40 more houses, shouldn’t I make 60x?
Or should I just stop buying houses and providing people places to live?
It’s that simple, if I don’t buy the houses, like the last few years, the construction industry falls off a cliff and the homes stop being built.[/quote]
Let’s get one thing straight: landlords are not the ones providing places for people to live; home builders do that. You don’t “magic” a house out of thin air just because you’re a landlord. The houses already exist, but the investors create additional demand that affects prices, forcing more people to rent, even when they would prefer to buy.
I favor end-users/consumers over speculators and investors. No, you’re not “entitled” to any kind of profit if you don’t **produce** something for it. I want to see working families buy their own homes/assets (if they want to) without having to resort to using gimmicky mortgages and without having to compete with speculators/investors.
Let the people who want to live there buy those houses. Speculators drive up housing prices so that the regular working people who live in them cannot afford to buy them. It’s almost impossible to save up enough money for a down payment when you’re paying the kind of rent demanded (by the “investors”) in many cities.
jstoesz
February 1, 2012 @
9:58 AM
Schadenfreude Schadenfreude
scaredyclassic
February 1, 2012 @
10:34 AM
Tg expresses a truth. This Tg expresses a truth. This is one problem with wanting more.
Hypertension is bad. Perhaps it is related to striving.
I believe we should lead our children toward work that lowers bp.
My teen and I bit have same bp about 90/60.
My mom is very concerned that he strive for a high powered position.
I say, let it take its course. Go wherever you can flow.
Personally I think the ideal job for me would have been urban walking mailman.
For him, I recommend househusband to a wealthy girl. Or rock climbing bum.
He was telling me about some legendary old climber who traversed the country w the same mcdonalds cup for years getting refills to cut expenses.
Grossly overpaid hobo!
jstoesz
February 1, 2012 @
10:35 AM
I have often wanted that job. I have often wanted that job. Then I think back on the paper route I had as a kid sweating in the summer, and the fantasy looses it luster.
scaredyclassic
February 1, 2012 @
10:43 AM
I love being outbin extreme I love being outbin extreme temperatures. I like being sweat soaked and I like chilliness when woolcovered. It makes me feel alive. That’s why The most memorable bike rides are in completely fucked up conditions.
Epic!
UCGal
February 1, 2012 @
11:16 AM
walterwhite wrote:Or rock [quote=walterwhite]Or rock climbing bum.
He was telling me about some legendary old climber who traversed the country w the same mcdonalds cup for years getting refills to cut expenses.
Grossly overpaid hobo![/quote]
My brother was a climbing bum for quite a while. Probably the happiest years of his life.
He lived in an unmarked campsite in Tuolumne Meadows one summer, climbing every day. Then when Tuolumne closed down he got a job as a maid (roomskeeper) at the Ahwahnee lodge – and climbed the big walls on his days off. His girlfriend at the time was also a climber – she had the better paying gig – waitress at Ahwahnee. (Good tips).
He would go to the cafeteria places in the valley and skarf up the food that others left behind on their trays.
Seriously – that was probably the happiest couple of years for him.
scaredyclassic
February 1, 2012 @
11:22 AM
I think culturally it us I think culturally it us important to act miserable at work so you get left alone wherever you are.
Which is ok as long as you just pretend.
scaredyclassic
February 1, 2012 @
11:23 AM
Upwardly mobile for life Upwardly mobile for life satisfaction scores
bearishgurl
February 1, 2012 @
10:42 AM
I agree with tg and scaredy. I agree with tg and scaredy. In govm’t, I would rather be a represented “line worker” any day than an unrepresented manager, director, dept head and/or executive. In all levels of government, the latter works purely at the pleasure of their appointing authority. Their continued employment is often on a purely political basis and could quickly change with the wind or “change of the guard.” It may appear to the rank-and-file peons that these individuals “have it easy” but nothing could be further from the truth, ESP in the last decade!
Hypertension is insidious and creeps up on govm’t workers of all levels at surprisingly young ages. My experience was that most of the ones who waited the longest to retire had the worst health by the time they finally did so. Some died before retirement due to ailments likely caused and/or exacerbated by unrelenting stress. Life is too short to put up with this garbage ad infinitum, IMHO.
jstoesz
February 1, 2012 @
1:16 PM
I lived in my car for a I lived in my car for a summer Kayaking up and down the sierras before I got a real job. Lived in a tent for a few other summers. It was a good time, but definately not as good as having a family and community. Life didn’t feel in balance. Good for a season.
no_such_reality
February 2, 2012 @
1:10 PM
The ignorance of that is The ignorance of that is almost astounding. There is no polite way to say it. I suggest you go see the places in the US where investors don’t invest. I’ve lived in them and know the dystopia your little workers paradise fantasy produces. You don’t even need to leave the states. Detroit has thousands of SFRs below $10k. Rural America is covered in neglect.
CA renter
February 3, 2012 @
3:47 AM
no_such_reality wrote:The [quote=no_such_reality]The ignorance of that is almost astounding. There is no polite way to say it. I suggest you go see the places in the US where investors don’t invest. I’ve lived in them and know the dystopia your little workers paradise fantasy produces. You don’t even need to leave the states. Detroit has thousands of SFRs below $10k. Rural America is covered in neglect.[/quote]
That has nothing to do with landlords and their “investments.” The reason Detroit is having such a difficult time is because of our tax and trade laws — favoring corporations and their “investors” over workers.
Let’s not forget stupid decisions on the part of management, especially in the auto industry — like “planned obsolescence,” especially at a time when your foreign competitors are advertising the greater durability of their vehicles.
Anonymous
February 3, 2012 @
4:42 AM
CA renter wrote:That has [quote=CA renter]That has nothing to do with landlords and their “investments.” The reason Detroit is having such a difficult time is because of our tax and trade laws — favoring corporations and their “investors” over workers.[/quote]
Another fairytale.
Please prove me wrong by cutting and pasting several out-of-context paragraphs from some irrelevant articles. Your post must fill at least half the page. (Don’t forget to highlight in bold a few sentences that almost sorta sound like they might support your argument.)
Better yet, let’s hear you explanation for the economic history of the Soviet Union, Cuba, or North Korea. That should provide some comedy. (Or are you still pretending these countries do not or never did exist?)
CA renter
February 3, 2012 @
9:57 PM
pri_dk wrote:CA renter [quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]That has nothing to do with landlords and their “investments.” The reason Detroit is having such a difficult time is because of our tax and trade laws — favoring corporations and their “investors” over workers.[/quote]
Another fairytale.
Please prove me wrong by cutting and pasting several out-of-context paragraphs from some irrelevant articles. Your post must fill at least half the page. (Don’t forget to highlight in bold a few sentences that almost sorta sound like they might support your argument.)
Better yet, let’s hear you explanation for the economic history of the Soviet Union, Cuba, or North Korea. That should provide some comedy. (Or are you still pretending these countries do not or never did exist?)[/quote]
Right, trade embargoes, economic sanctions, wars against these countries, lopsided treaties and trade agreements, etc. had nothing at all to do with the economic health of those countries. It was that “evil socialism” that did it. (BTW, I don’t like communism any more than I like unchecked, Darwinian capitalism; they both lend themselves to massive corruption which is what causes the downfall of nations.)
Why not look at “socialized” countries that don’t have these unfair, US-imposed conditions and restrictions, instead? Oh, that’s right…you’d be proven wrong, once again.
See for yourself. Here, you can look up various measures of well-being. Check out crime statistics, literacy, health, economic stats, etc.
But hey, don’t let facts or logic get in your way. Just keep on regurgitating the rhetoric you’ve been brainwashed to believe all your life.
sdrealtor
February 3, 2012 @
10:38 PM
I love sites that compare I love sites that compare life in the us to Luxembourg and slovenia
CA renter
February 3, 2012 @
10:56 PM
Apparently, you didn’t see Apparently, you didn’t see all the other countries listed there?
no_such_reality
February 4, 2012 @
6:28 AM
Well, I’ve lived in Detroit Well, I’ve lived in Detroit and worked for the auto industry While management may have made plenty of blunders, trust me, the workers are a giant part of the problem.
I’ve literally heard workers joking about how they intentionally f’d up a car coming down the line that’ll drive the owner nuts trying to get it fixed.
I’ve seen workers playing cards at picnic tables while automated machines do the work they used to do.
I’ve seen dozens of workers standing around idled for 20 minutes waiting for a another union member to show up and push the reset button on the line even though they all knew he would just show up and push the reset button. They couldn’t because of union rules.
I’ve seen the damage as the vandalize people’s cars, never mind it’s some poor new hires 7 year old car from college.
I worked with them, they don’t care about anyone as long as they get ‘their’s’.
Did I mention the sense of entitlement?
Honestly, I’m surprised it took GM as long as it did to go bankrupt.
But back to your main premise. Asset speculation is evil. I’m assuming from your rants, that commodity speculators are the bottom of the barrel. House flippers only marginally better.
My question, where does the modern american grocery store fit? They are nothing but asset speculators. They don’t intend to use the product. Heck, they don’t even take possesion. They don’t produce. The bakery, if they have one, is the only part the produces something. The rest, just buy an asset, and attempt to charge you more for it and literally waste large amounts of it. They don’t even do distribution. For many products, they don’t stock the shelves. La Brea bread in the store, La Brea Bakery does all the distribution and stocking. Fresh veggies, fruits, often the producer needs to do the shipping. At best the store puts it on the counter.
Anonymous
February 4, 2012 @
11:21 AM
CA renter wrote:Right, trade [quote=CA renter]Right, trade embargoes, economic sanctions, wars against these countries, […][/quote]
We never fought a war against the Soviet Union or Cuba. There hasn’t been any fighting with North Korea for 60 years.
We fought an even bigger and more recent war with Vietnam, and their economy is booming now. Why?
Trade embargos and economic sanctions? If their systems are so wonderful, then why do they need trade with the evil capitalist world? Why did their economies completely FAIL without goods from the capitalist world?
Your ignorance of history is off the charts, but I’m curious just how far into stupid you can go…
[quote=CA renter]Why not look at “socialized” countries that don’t have these unfair, US-imposed conditions and restrictions, instead? Oh, that’s right…you’d be proven wrong, once again.[/quote]
“Socialized” countries? Making up more words again? I suppose you can do that when you live in your own little world…
As for your list, there’s nothing on it. But I’ll give you an opportunity to prove how smart you are. Name one country without financial markets that has even a fraction of the standard of living the US has.
Name ONE.
CA renter
February 4, 2012 @
3:22 PM
Pri_dk,
Until you learn to Pri_dk,
Until you learn to debate in a civil and respectful way, I’m done with responding to your posts.
You’ve complained about my “long” posts (God forbid we actually cite facts and statistics), but failed to introduce any facts or logic to substantiate your positions. At least I can READ and cite sources. You’re arguments invariably consist of “you’re stupid and your mom smells like a monkey’s butt.”
Next time you want to know what “stupid and ignorant” looks like, take a look in the mirror.
CA renter wrote:Pri_dk,
Until [quote=CA renter]Pri_dk,
Until you learn to debate in a civil and respectful way, I’m done with responding to your posts.
[response to my post, including directly calling me (not my arguments) “stupid and ignorant”][/quote]
Thank you for setting the example of civility.
And now that I’ve learned to be civil, I’d like to thank you for your links with “facts and statistics.”
I especially appreciate your “Cold War” link.
Because you are correct – I’d never heard of the Cold War. Even though I was an officer in the US Army in the 1980s; even though I had extensive training in Soviet military doctrine and the history of the Korean, Vietnam and Soviet-Afghan wars; even though I worked and trained with men who had fought in Vietnam, patrolled the Korean DMZ, and operated nuclear missile systems in Germany; and even though I spent many hours training in a gas mask and chemical warfare suit (because the Soviet doctrine was to use chemical weapons first); and even though I personally remember civil defense drills in elementary school, I somehow never had heard of the Cold War until you came along and enlightened me.
And now that I’ve been introduced to the Cold War, I do have a question. Since you’ve done so much READING, I know you can answer:
Why did one economy prevail and the other collapse? After all, both sides were “fighting” – trying to “hurt” each other. Why did one fail and the other emerge as the strongest economy on earth?
In other words, are you actually trying to claim communism is a better system – in the year 2012?
(BTW, you still haven’t named one country in response to my previous post…that is, if we are still talking to each other…)
SD Realtor
February 4, 2012 @
6:00 PM
What I think is pretty funny What I think is pretty funny is that if you look at the numbers, a good percentage of sales in the recent recovery has been due to investor activity.
Aso given some of the incentives that the administration is providing such as bulk sales and things like that, there is a general recognition that investors provide much needed liquidity into the market.
However it is useless to argue that point with someone who has no recognition of that sort of value.
CA renter
February 4, 2012 @
6:43 PM
SD Realtor wrote:What I think [quote=SD Realtor]What I think is pretty funny is that if you look at the numbers, a good percentage of sales in the recent recovery has been due to investor activity.
Aso given some of the incentives that the administration is providing such as bulk sales and things like that, there is a general recognition that investors provide much needed liquidity into the market.
However it is useless to argue that point with someone who has no recognition of that sort of value.[/quote]
They “invest” at the expense of future buyers. High housing prices do not create the environment for a true economic rebound. I would argue that high housing prices reduce the amount (without a debt offset) that families can spend in more productive ways.
There are plenty of end-users who would love to buy their own homes, but cannot afford to do so because of all the investor activity.
Imagine how much better our economy would be if the end users were able to get the same deals that bulk investors do.
BTW, the fact that the govt is getting into these deals with investors is not a sign that they “value” these investors…it is an indication of the massive corruption that exists in our society.
scaredyclassic
February 4, 2012 @
9:01 PM
Cut out the middleman, and we Cut out the middleman, and we will all be alone on the end.
Middleman would have been a nice name for my second kid but we didn’t know at the tine we would gave three
Allan from Fallbrook
February 5, 2012 @
3:14 PM
pri_dk wrote:I spent many [quote=pri_dk]I spent many hours training in a gas mask and chemical warfare suit (because the Soviet doctrine was to use chemical weapons first)[/quote]
Pri: Remember those exercises with the MOPP suits? Dude, those were nasty. Do you recall that a Soviet chem attack would have struck before we had a chance to even get into the suits? That was particularly funny and not in a “ha, ha” way.
I was in an Armored Cav unit in the Fulda in the early 1980s and we were constantly doing those stupid NBC exercises. Thank God the balloon never went up, or we’d be having a completely different discussion about the Soviet Union and the Communist “way of life” (still alive and well in North Korea, Cuba and China).
Anonymous
February 5, 2012 @
3:34 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Pri: Remember those exercises with the MOPP suits? Dude, those were nasty. Do you recall that a Soviet chem attack would have struck before we had a chance to even get into the suits? That was particularly funny and not in a “ha, ha” way.[/quote]
The MOPP suits did provide a layer of warmth in the winter though. I always felt that was probably all they were really good for.
no_such_reality
February 5, 2012 @
7:43 AM
So CA renter, CalPers is one So CA renter, CalPers is one of the largest investors.
They ironically, own and have lost bundles in real estate.
Are you saying CalPers is victimizing people in order to provide the government worker pensions?
If CalPers doesn’t invest, then who is going lose that value so that the government workers can have their pension?
Alternately, my neighbors are in their 70s. Their house is worth north of $500,000, if not $700K. They bought it, 40 years ago, for price of a modern honda accord. Are they exploiting future buyers by reaping that gain?
SD Realtor
February 5, 2012 @
9:06 AM
I forgot that some people I forgot that some people feel that owning a home is an entitlement.
So I guess you are saying people should not be allowed to buy real estate as an investment then?
So why doesn’t that apply to equities as well? Or cars? Or anything for that matter?
scaredyclassic
February 5, 2012 @
2:19 PM
Should at least be a level Should at least be a level playing field investors v. Working stiffs
CA renter
February 5, 2012 @
2:51 PM
SD Realtor wrote:I forgot [quote=SD Realtor]I forgot that some people feel that owning a home is an entitlement.
So I guess you are saying people should not be allowed to buy real estate as an investment then?
So why doesn’t that apply to equities as well? Or cars? Or anything for that matter?[/quote]
Because we have to decide as a society if we want to encourage work vs. gambling. Yes, I feel that a family’s right to own their own home trumps the “rights” of investors to make a profit.
Houses are different because they are a basic necessity (I feel the same way about agricultural commodities, etc., as well). I don’t have as stong of an opinion WRT stocks and other “paper” assets — the purpose of those assets is to enable speculation/investment. Homes are built to provide shelter for people, they should not be used for speculative “investments.”
Anonymous
February 5, 2012 @
4:01 PM
CA renter wrote: Homes are [quote=CA renter] Homes are built to provide shelter for people, they should not be used for speculative “investments.”[/quote]
And how should we prevent investors from purchasing homes and renting them to others – a law forbidding ownership of rental properties?
Funny, there was a post from BG a while back describing the “typical” retired teacher as owning and managing couple of rental properties, just to make ends meet.
Arraya
February 5, 2012 @
4:41 PM
The casino won’t be closed The casino won’t be closed until enough people lose there asses.
However;
* The financial model of growth in the developed world has run its course and financial assets will be significantly reduced in value over the next few years.
* Systematic intermittent deleveraging will lead to persistently high unemployment and widespread poverty.
* Societal institutions or systems that rely on financial stability will continue to deteriorate at an accelerating pace (education, healthcare, etc.).
* States running large fiscal deficits to support their private economies will quickly slide into insolvency and default on ambitious promises to their citizens.
* Housing, food and energy will become unaffordable for millions of people as wealth in the form of revenues, investments and savings is rapidly destroyed, and short-term speculative plays in the commodity space fueled by central bank liquidity will only make this dynamic worse.
And finally,
* Political institutions or systems that have exercised power during the unprecedented financial boom will come under an equally unprecedented societal pressure and will most likely be overhauled or completely dismantled
bearishgurl
February 5, 2012 @
7:44 PM
Arraya wrote:The casino won’t [quote=Arraya]The casino won’t be closed until enough people lose there asses.
However;
* The financial model of growth in the developed world has run its course and financial assets will be significantly reduced in value over the next few years.
* Systematic intermittent deleveraging will lead to persistently high unemployment and widespread poverty.
* Societal institutions or systems that rely on financial stability will continue to deteriorate at an accelerating pace (education, healthcare, etc.).
* States running large fiscal deficits to support their private economies will quickly slide into insolvency and default on ambitious promises to their citizens.
* Housing, food and energy will become unaffordable for millions of people as wealth in the form of revenues, investments and savings is rapidly destroyed, and short-term speculative plays in the commodity space fueled by central bank liquidity will only make this dynamic worse.
And finally,
* Political institutions or systems that have exercised power during the unprecedented financial boom will come under an equally unprecedented societal pressure and will most likely be overhauled or completely dismantled[/quote]
So, Arraya, what should one do to plan for retirement or IN retirement?? I think, if one knows RE local best (over stock market investments), they should plan to buy SFR rental investments for ONE YEAR LEASES!! Anything less, investing in duplex, triplex, apt bldgs, etc is asking for trouble. To be frank, a prospective apt renter could very well have several “family members” they want or need to “put up” after each family member has sustained some sort of “loss.” These people feel a need to provide shelter for their (disenfranchised, lol) family members in whatever way they can, even if the unit they rented is “insufficent” for the job.
In recent months, I have increasingly felt that investing in “distressed” (SFR) RE is the KEY to investing for maximum income for retirement (for income purposes).
I respect your opinion on this matter. What do YOU think??
PS: I know my local RE opportunities like the back on my hand … lol.
scaredyclassic
February 5, 2012 @
8:14 PM
W/ tax incentives, homeowners W/ tax incentives, homeowners could easily be given a big advantage over investors. Doesn’t seem like bad tax policy.
That was kind of the purpose behind deducting interest wasn’t it? To incentivize homeownership?
CA renter
February 5, 2012 @
11:03 PM
walterwhite wrote:W/ tax [quote=walterwhite]W/ tax incentives, homeowners could easily be given a big advantage over investors. Doesn’t seem like bad tax policy.
That was kind of the purpose behind deducting interest wasn’t it? To incentivize homeownership?[/quote]
Exactly. That, and only providing govt-backed loans for the purchase of a single, owner-occupied, primary residence.
One more…all RE inventory owned or controlled by the govt should be offered to owner-occupiers before being offered to any investors. The govt would incur far fewer losses, too!
Arraya
February 6, 2012 @
12:37 AM
BG – since the specter of BG – since the specter of serious deflation, possibly abrupt and hard, hangs over our financial heads at all time – the only thing you should hope for is return of capital rather than return on capital.
Anonymous
February 6, 2012 @
6:50 AM
There already are substantial There already are substantial tax incentives favoring homeowners over investors. Investors can only deduct mortgage interest because it is a business expense. (All businesses can deduct all types of interest – it has nothing to do with incentives.) Also, only individuals can borrow through government lending programs, not corporations. Government policy already favors the owner/occupier, big time.
And don’t for get that “rewarding” people who buy homes indirectly punishes the poor – those who typically rent – because these polices shift tax dollars from other programs to people who are probably doing OK already (homeowners.)
But let’s ignore common sense, because our most important goal is to get revenge on the “asset price speculators.”
(Actually the goal is to make housing more affordable so that one person here can live somewhere nicer, but let’s focus on the “asset price speculation” bogeyman anyway…)
We have to end all real-estate investing!
We’ll start by introducing a bill into Congress.
Let’s call it the Screw Renters (the poor) by Massively Reducing the Supply of Basic Shelter and Sending Rental Rates Through the Roof Act.
I yield the floor to the Senator from San Diego…
CA renter
February 6, 2012 @
11:00 AM
pri_dk wrote:There already [quote=pri_dk]There already are substantial tax incentives favoring homeowners over investors. Investors can only deduct mortgage interest because it is a business expense. (All businesses can deduct all types of interest – it has nothing to do with incentives.) Also, only individuals can borrow through government lending programs, not corporations. Government policy already favors the owner/occupier, big time.
And don’t for get that “rewarding” people who buy homes indirectly punishes the poor – those who typically rent – because these polices shift tax dollars from other programs to people who are probably doing OK already (homeowners.)
But let’s ignore common sense, because our most important goal is to get revenge on the “asset price speculators.”
(Actually the goal is to make housing more affordable so that one person here can live somewhere nicer, but let’s focus on the “asset price speculation” bogeyman anyway…)
We have to end all real-estate investing!
We’ll start by introducing a bill into Congress.
Let’s call it the Screw Renters (the poor) by Massively Reducing the Supply of Basic Shelter and Sending Rental Rates Through the Roof Act.
I yield the floor to the Senator from San Diego…[/quote]
Hogwash. What “substantial tax incentives” favor homeowners over investors? Investors get to deduct interest and property tax expenses, and ONLY “investors” are allowed to deduct repair and maintenance costs, etc. Investors get Prop 13 protection, which is rarely shared with renters (most investors will charge market rates, they won’t usually discount the rent because they’re paying lower property taxes than their neighbors unless they have superior, long-term renters who help reduce their turnover and vacancy expenses, in return). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans are available to investors, and FHA loans are available to investors who don’t already have another FHA loan on another property. Whether the investors are “indivduals” or “corporations” doesn’t matter one bit — we’re talking about investors vs. owner-occupiers, not corporate structures.
It’s funny how you perceive the world. Not everyone is as selfish as you. Some of us can distinguish between what’s good for ourselves, and what’s good for society. Some of us are willing to make personal sacrifices so that others can benefit. For us, we alreay live in a very nice house, and paid cash for it — thanks to “asset price speculation.” This isn’t about what will benefit us, personally; it’s about what I think is fair for others.
Anonymous
February 6, 2012 @
11:34 AM
CA renter wrote:It’s funny [quote=CA renter]It’s funny how you perceive the world. Not everyone is as selfish as you. Some of us can distinguish between what’s good for ourselves, and what’s good for society. Some of us are willing to make personal sacrifices so that others can benefit. For us, we alreay live in a very nice house, and paid cash for it — thanks to “asset price speculation.” This isn’t about what will benefit us, personally; it’s about what I think is fair for others.[/quote]
You really raised the bar for self-contradiction and hypocrisy with that one.
Enjoying the gains you made through investments – but now you are experiencing pangs of conscience, and don’t want anybody else to have those same rewards?
“I got mine, now let’s change the rules. After all, they are unfair.”
In your own words:
[quote]Asset price speculators are no different from ticket scalpers. Perhaps you think they add to the economy; I think they’re the biggest parasites on the planet.[/quote]
BTW, know anybody who’s selling tickets to tonight’s Lakers game?
Some of your fellow ‘parasites’ perhaps?
CA renter
February 6, 2012 @
12:19 PM
No, I want to pay higher No, I want to pay higher taxes on our dividends and LT gains. I think these tax rates are “unfair” because I know what it’s like to work for a living vs. invest for a living. I’ve done both, and there is no doubt in my mind that working for a living is much more difficult, and much more valuable to society.
There is no reason for investors to be paying lower taxes than those who work for a living. As a matter of fact, I think investors — especially “asset price speculators” (including myself!) — should pay higher rates than workers.
scaredyclassic
February 6, 2012 @
12:31 PM
Does seem like a pretty big Does seem like a pretty big advantage to let investors deduct all the maintenance.
Anonymous
February 6, 2012 @
1:22 PM
walterwhite wrote:Does seem [quote=walterwhite]Does seem like a pretty big advantage to let investors deduct all the maintenance.[/quote]
Homeowners can deduct maintenance from their basis when they realize the gain – if they are subject to capital gains taxes at all, and most aren’t because of the exemptions for the sale of a home (another huge tax advantage for homeowners, BTW..)
Basically investment properties are taxed like any other business – you claim your income and deduct your expenses, which includes depreciation.
CA renter
February 6, 2012 @
1:22 PM
pri_dk wrote:walterwhite [quote=pri_dk][quote=walterwhite]Does seem like a pretty big advantage to let investors deduct all the maintenance.[/quote]
Homeowners can deduct maintenance from their basis when they realize the gain – if they are subject to capital gains taxes at all, and most aren’t because of the exemptions for the same of a home (another huge tax advantage for homeowners, BTW..)
Basically investment properties are taxed like any other business – you claim your income and deduct your expenses, which includes depreciation.[/quote]
Owner-occupiers cannot add regular maintenance costs to their cost basis. Only “improvements” like additions, new HVAC systems, etc. that add value to their homes can be added, AFAIK. If a tax specialist here knows the exact details, please feel free to chime in!
Not only that, but owner-occupiers cannot deduct these expenses/add to cost basis unless they sell, whereas landlords can do so without selling.
Exactly what “special” tax incentives are you talking about that favor owner-occupiers? I don’t know of any except the relatively new (1997) $250K/$500K cap gains exemption, which I also disagree with — though they could allow sellers to add inflation to their cost basis so they’re not paying taxes on inflation alone, but that opens up a whole new can of worms. There is also the Homeowner’s Exemption for property taxes in certain counties (not sure of the differences between the counties and states), but that’s a pretty paltry benefit.
It’s pretty clear to me that investors are definitely on the winning side of the “homeownership” deal.
Anonymous
February 6, 2012 @
1:38 PM
CAR,
Mortgage interest CAR,
Mortgage interest deduction and cap gains exemption are the biggies, and they are big.
You are right that “maintenance” is not deductible – only “improvements” for homeowners.
But these details are irrelevant because investment homes are taxed like every other business activity. In other words, there is nothing unique about the business of renting homes (and the vast majority of rental homes are small businesses done on the side by ordinary people with jobs.)
The real nonsense in your claims is that these cost “advantages” that investors enjoy are not passed on to renters. Really?
Since when can landlords demand whatever they want for rent?
Since when is it forbidden for a renter to shop around or move to a less-expensive property?
The landlord that does not “pass on the savings” by lowering their price doesn’t get the tenant. Because the tenant will go to the landlord who does. It’s that simple (BTW this is called “Econ 101,” you should look into it sometime…)
The rental market is one of the least constrained markets that there is. The laws that often are in place, like rent control and eviction laws, generally favor tenants over the landlord.
It’s just not a problem. You need to find a better scapegoat.
CA renter
February 6, 2012 @
2:48 PM
pri_dk wrote:The real [quote=pri_dk]The real nonsense in your claims is that these cost “advantages” that investors enjoy are not passed on to renters. Really?
Since when can landlords demand whatever they want for rent?
Since when is it forbidden for a renter to shop around or move to a less-expensive property?
The landlord that does not “pass on the savings” by lowering their price doesn’t get the tenant. Because the tenant will go to the landlord who does. It’s that simple (BTW this is called “Econ 101,” you should look into it sometime…)
The rental market is one of the least constrained markets that there is. The laws that often are in place, like rent control and eviction laws, generally favor tenants over the landlord.
It’s just not a problem. You need to find a better scapegoat.[/quote]
Yes, really. Most landlords will charge market rent; they do not give discounts to renters out of the kindness of their hearts, no matter what their costs are. Landlords are in it for profit, and California taxpayers are subsidizing their profits via Prop 13 protections. Since you are such a staunch taxpayer advocate, why do we not hear you ranting about this?
In a high-demand market, rental supply (all housing) is indeed constrained.
Try taking that Econ 101 course yourself, you certainly need it.
BTW, in all the years I’ve been on blogs/message boards (over a decade), I’ve never once initiated a personal attack. OTOH, if someone starts with me, I’ll be patient initially; but if they continue, I’ll give it right back. You’ve more than asked for it.
edit: I’ve never said, “you don’t deserve to live here if you weren’t born here.” I’ve said that you ought to practice what you constantly preach. You always claim that people have choices if they don’t like something in this “free-market” Utopia of yours…so if you don’t like the tax rates in California, make another choice and move to another state with a lower tax burden. Don’t move to one of the most liberal states in the nation and then complain about how we run things. We don’t have to change things just to please you (or anyone else who chooses to move here). It’s a bit like the idiots who move next to an airport, and then lobby to have the airport closed or restrict air traffic because they don’t like the noise.
Anonymous
February 6, 2012 @
3:49 PM
CA renter wrote:Don’t move to [quote=CA renter]Don’t move to one of the most liberal states in the nation and then complain about how we run things. We don’t have to change things just to please you (or anyone else who chooses to move here).[/quote]
Gee, I guess I’ve been doing it wrong for a long time.
I moved here more than twenty years ago, after serving in the US Army.
During all those years, I’d been voting in California elections. I didn’t realize I wasn’t supposed to have opinions or participate in the political process.
I actually believed that a US Citizen can live in any state. I actually thought that my military service was something I did to ensure that right (and your right, too.)
I actually believed that the state taxes I paid gave me some right to a say in how they are spent.
I never realized that “we” does not include “me.” (I guess it doesn’t include a lot of Piggs either.)
Now I know that the “we” who “run things” only means “you” and other people where were born here (how did Arnold ever become Governor?)
[quote]It’s a bit like the idiots who move next to an airport, and then lobby to have the airport closed or restrict air traffic because they don’t like the noise.[/quote]
Yes, anyone that doesn’t accept the status quo is truly an “idiot.”
Allan from Fallbrook
February 6, 2012 @
3:58 PM
pri_dk wrote:CA renter [quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Don’t move to one of the most liberal states in the nation and then complain about how we run things. We don’t have to change things just to please you (or anyone else who chooses to move here).[/quote]
Gee, I guess I’ve been doing it wrong for a long time.
I moved here more than twenty years ago, after serving in the US Army.
During all those years, I’d been voting in California elections. I didn’t realize I wasn’t supposed to have opinions or participate in the political process.
I actually believed that a US Citizen can live in any state. I actually thought that my military service was something I did to ensure that right (and your right, too.)
I actually believed that the state taxes I paid gave me some right to a say in how they are spent.
I never realized that “we” does not include “me.” (I guess it doesn’t include a lot of Piggs either.)
Now I know that the “we” who “run things” only means “you” and other people where were born here (how did Arnold ever become Governor?)
[quote]It’s a bit like the idiots who move next to an airport, and then lobby to have the airport closed or restrict air traffic because they don’t like the noise.[/quote]
Yes, anyone that doesn’t accept the status quo is truly an “idiot.”[/quote]
Pri: I’ve been watching the back-and-forth with CAR, and this one really got me, especially being California born and bred.
CAR: This state is in the midst of committing financial suicide and that’s the response? Are you being serious? Like pri, I also served and I also find those comments appalling. You don’t speak for me, and I have as much right to be here in California as anyone else REGARDLESS OF MY POLITICAL BELIEFS. Who are you to tell me what to believe, or how to act, or when to keep my mouth shut? What an unbelievably patronizing, autocratic and somewhat fascist remark. Last time I checked, California was still part of America (although apparently just barely).
CA renter
February 6, 2012 @
4:28 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: I’ve been watching the back-and-forth with CAR, and this one really got me, especially being California born and bred.
CAR: This state is in the midst of committing financial suicide and that’s the response? Are you being serious? Like pri, I also served and I also find those comments appalling. You don’t speak for me, and I have as much right to be here in California as anyone else REGARDLESS OF MY POLITICAL BELIEFS. Who are you to tell me what to believe, or how to act, or when to keep my mouth shut? What an unbelievably patronizing, autocratic and somewhat fascist remark. Last time I checked, California was still part of America (although apparently just barely).[/quote]
You’ve missed a lot of the back-and-forth between Pri and myself, Allan.
[edit: My comment was in response to his post…which was a response to another comment I had made some time ago in a totally different thread.]
This has nothing to do with your political beliefs, military service, how you should act, or what you should say. Don’t come into the middle of a situation you’re not familiar with and then start firing off like that.
Pri is forever telling us that we have a “choice” when we buy things in the private market. I’ve been saying that it’s not nearly as neat and tidy as that. He’s complained about the taxes in California, and I told him that his beliefs about “choice” in the “free market” would lead him to move somewhere else where the tax burden is lower. That “choice” thing isn’t always as easy as some would make it sound.
As much as you have a right to live somewhere, so do the rest of us. We ALL have a say in how things are run. The fact that you’ve served in the military does not give you any greater rights than the rest of us outside of the income, benefits, and pensions you may have earned as a result of your service (and you deserve it!). Whether you were fighting for our “freedom” or for the benefit of corporations and moneyed interests is another discussion, though.
If I don’t like how a city, state, or country runs things, the last thing I’m going to do is move there, start complaining about it, and then expect them to change things just to suit me.
Anonymous
February 6, 2012 @
4:43 PM
CA renter wrote:If I don’t [quote=CA renter]If I don’t like how a city, state, or country runs things, the last thing I’m going to do is move there, start complaining about it, and then expect them to change things just to suit me.[/quote]
“Them?”
Wow…you still don’t get it.
Here’s some news for ya: I do like most of how California runs things (and I like most Californians.)
But what you are still saying is that YOU have the right to take issue with things you don’t like because you were born here, and apparently I have to accept everything that ever happens in California without question.
So how long do have to live and pay taxes here before I get to have an opinion? When do “I” get to be part of “we?”
Allan is spot on, and your awkward “love it or leave it” argument is, in fact “patronizing, autocratic and somewhat fascist.”
Birthright is bigotry.
(BTW, Wall Street is in New York.)
CA renter
February 6, 2012 @
10:44 PM
pri_dk wrote:CA renter [quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]If I don’t like how a city, state, or country runs things, the last thing I’m going to do is move there, start complaining about it, and then expect them to change things just to suit me.[/quote]
“Them?”
Wow…you still don’t get it.
Here’s some news for ya: I do like most of how California runs things (and I like most Californians.)
But what you are still saying is that YOU have the right to take issue with things you don’t like because you were born here, and apparently I have to accept everything that ever happens in California without question.
So how long do have to live and pay taxes here before I get to have an opinion? When do “I” get to be part of “we?”
Allan is spot on, and your awkward “love it or leave it” argument is, in fact “patronizing, autocratic and somewhat fascist.”
Birthright is bigotry.
(BTW, Wall Street is in New York.)[/quote]
No, if I were as frustrated as you are about the way California is run, I would move. That’s what I’m saying. You have an even easier position WRT opting out of living here. Native Californians and those who were moved here as minor children (those who had no choice in moving here) have familial obligations, well-established social and cultural networks, etc. that they would have to give up in order to “opt-out” of California. They did not get to choose where to live. For someone who **chose** to move here as an adult, your choice to opt-out is much easier to make — you never had to “buy it”/move here in the first place. You do not have the same roots and obligations that those of us who’ve lived here all our lives do, so your ability to avoid the frustration with our tax system (and anything else you don’t like about CA) is far easier.
The issue being debated in the other thread was whether or not you had a **choice** to pay the “overly-burdensome” (according to you) taxes in California. You claimed that you didn’t have a choice. I corrected you by explaining that you had the same choice that those in the “private market” do — you can easily “opt-out” of buying what you do not want. California has a long history of being a “liberal” state with generally higher taxes. When you **chose** to move here, you made the **choice** to pay the price for a particular thing (living in California).
Stop claiming that you don’t have a choice. You have the same choice that consumers do when you tell them they can “avoid buying” something if they don’t like how a company is run, etc. You are the one who keeps talking about how great the “free market” is because consumers get to put pressure on companies by “choosing” whether or not to buy a particular product. Just follow your own advice if you think it’s so great.
BTW, when did I ever claim that Wall Street was anywhere else but NY?????????
no_such_reality
February 6, 2012 @
11:00 PM
CA renter wrote:Native [quote=CA renter]Native Californians and those who were moved here as minor children (those who had no choice in moving here) have familial obligations, well-established social and cultural networks, etc. that they would have to give up in order to “opt-out” of California
[/quote]
It hasn’t occurred to you that those that come here have already had to give all that you mention up to come here?
There is no going back.
bearishgurl
February 6, 2012 @
11:13 PM
no_such_reality wrote:CA [quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter]Native Californians and those who were moved here as minor children (those who had no choice in moving here) have familial obligations, well-established social and cultural networks, etc. that they would have to give up in order to “opt-out” of California
[/quote]
It hasn’t occurred to you that those that come here have already had to give all that you mention up to come here?
There is no going back.[/quote]
I disagree, NSR. Nobody HAS to move to CA as an adult. They make a CHOICE to do it. And you can ALWAYS go back to where you came from . . . that is, unless you are from a very small rural community and burned all your bridges there :={
CA renter
February 6, 2012 @
11:34 PM
Let me try explaining this Let me try explaining this from another perspective…
The people who are native/long-time Californians are not trying to force anything on anyone else. Others get to **choose** whether or not they want to live here (as we do).
Some people apparently want to move here from somewhere else (making a **volutary choice** to move to a place with existing tax structures, laws, cultures, etc.) and then FORCE their beliefs and changes on other people who already live here. I guess that is what I have a problem with.
There are relatively few “liberal,” higher-tax, higher-regulation states; California is one of those states — some of us LIKE taxes and regulations that protect the public and provide a better way of life (in our opinion). There are many more “red” states where taxes are lower, public employee pay/benefits are lower, there are fewer regulations, etc. If that’s what someone likes, they can move to those places. They have a **choice.** Isn’t that what the much-vaunted “free market” (that Pri brags about so much) is all about?
CA renter
February 6, 2012 @
11:18 PM
Yes, but that is a **choice** Yes, but that is a **choice** that they made when they moved. If they have regrets, that is nobody else’s fault, and nobody else is obligated to change things just to suit those who’ve (apparently) made bad **choices.**
[edit: this was in response to NSR’s post]
Anonymous
February 6, 2012 @
12:40 PM
CA renter wrote:No, I want to [quote=CA renter]No, I want to pay higher taxes on our dividends and LT gains.[/quote]
So do I.
[quote]I know what it’s like to work for a living vs. invest for a living. I’ve done both […][/quote]
As have I.
Seems like we are agreement on these policies.
So why do you brand me as “selfish” as you trot around spouting half-baked Marxist platitudes from the saddle of your high-horse?
BTW, you excluded a source of wealth. There’s work, investments, and inheritance.
Me, I’ve never received a dime from the latter.
CA renter
February 6, 2012 @
1:31 PM
pri_dk wrote:CA renter [quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]No, I want to pay higher taxes on our dividends and LT gains.[/quote]
So do I.
[quote]I know what it’s like to work for a living vs. invest for a living. I’ve done both […][/quote]
As have I.
Seems like we are agreement on these policies.
So why do you brand me as “selfish” as you trot around spouting half-baked Marxist platitudes from the saddle of your high-horse?
BTW, you excluded a source of wealth. There’s work, investments, and inheritance.
Me, I’ve never received a dime from the latter.[/quote]
I don’t believe in an inheritance tax because this money was already earned and taxed. I believe very strongly in private property rights, and once something is taxed, don’t think it should be taxed again. What is ours is our childrens’ and they should not be taxed if we pass away and they take control of the assets. They SHOULD be taxed at the higher and more progressive rates that I advocate for when they earn income from that wealth.
Contrary to popular myth, inheritance does not concentrate wealth, it tends to dilute it. In most cases, wealth goes from one or two entities/people to multiple entities/people. It’s when this money is used to “make more money” and gets taxed at a much lower rate that it becomes more concentrated. It’s the concentration of wealth — especially when it is not “earned” via labor — that I have a problem with.
FWIW, I get where you were going with this personal comment (yet, again). While we inherited some wealth (most from cap gains), the majority of our wealth was “earned” by us.
Anonymous
February 6, 2012 @
1:58 PM
CA renter wrote:I believe [quote=CA renter]I believe very strongly in private property rights […][/quote]
I can tell that you do. At least for your property.
[quote=CA renter]FWIW, I get where you were going with this personal comment (yet, again). While we inherited some wealth (most from cap gains), the majority of our wealth was “earned” by us.[/quote]
Sorry, I’m still trying to figure out what’s a “personal comment” and what is not.
So, from what I can tell, it works like this:
– One person calling someone “selfish” or telling them that they don’t deserve to live somewhere because of where they were born is not personal.
– One person stating that they themselves didn’t inherent any money is a personal comment.
Got it (I think?)
Also, nice job on the thorough inheritance and taxation rationalization. Well rehearsed, I can tell. (oops! was that “personal?”)
SD Realtor
February 5, 2012 @
8:24 PM
CAR you are so far off it is CAR you are so far off it is scary.
Nobody and I repeat NOBODY is entitled to own land or a home. It is a priviledge. You want it your way, go live in a country where the govt owns it all and doles it out.
Don’t give me a sob story about shelter. People who do not own can rent. I would venture there is not a single person on this blog that has not rented. I bet they had parents that rented as well. Your argument is invalid. Furthermore there is not a lack of affordable housing at all. There are plenty of great cities with cheap housing, and guess what, investors buy there as well. So your “whoa is me, those investors are responsible for the high prices” cry is incorrect. The facts are that desireable locations have higher prices. The other fact is that the give aloan to anyone that has a pulse policy is a hell of a lot more responsible for the problem then anything else.
CA renter
February 5, 2012 @
11:01 PM
SDR,
You and I have very SDR,
You and I have very different opinions about this, but that’s about where it ends. There is no “right” or “wrong” on this…just different. We have different values, and I believe that decent working peole are 100% more “deserving” of a home than investors are “deserving” a profit from buying up available housing inventory, either to sell at a profit or to rent out.
Asset price speculators are no different from ticket scalpers. Perhaps you think they add to the economy; I think they’re the biggest parasites on the planet. They don’t produce anything — neither goods nor services — and they manipulate prices which sends false demand/supply signals to the producers and consumers of the world, causing a gross misallocation of resources in many cases.
Yes, speculators absolutely can push prices up (and down), especially in markets where there are real supply constraints (like real estate). That is a cold, hard fact. You don’t have to believe it, but that doesn’t change reality.
an
February 5, 2012 @
5:37 PM
pri_dk wrote:And how should [quote=pri_dk]And how should we prevent investors from purchasing homes and renting them to others – a law forbidding ownership of rental properties?
Funny, there was a post from BG a while back describing the “typical” retired teacher as owning and managing couple of rental properties, just to make ends meet.[/quote]
One simple solution is for the government to outlaw any price to be associated with housing. Everyone can have just one house. You can’t buy more than one at a time. You can trade but there’s no monetary value in the transaction. There will be no renter, since everyone have one house for free. So, the demand for rental is 0, which mean no one will want to buy rental (even in the black market).
Anonymous
February 6, 2012 @
7:04 AM
AN wrote:One simple solution [quote=AN]One simple solution is for the government to outlaw any price to be associated with housing. Everyone can have just one house. You can’t buy more than one at a time. You can trade but there’s no monetary value in the transaction. There will be no renter, since everyone have one house for free. So, the demand for rental is 0, which mean no one will want to buy rental (even in the black market).[/quote]
Great idea!
One question, though: Who gets the big houses on the beach?
Probably the high-ranking members of the politburo.
an
February 6, 2012 @
11:02 AM
pri_dk wrote:AN wrote:One [quote=pri_dk][quote=AN]One simple solution is for the government to outlaw any price to be associated with housing. Everyone can have just one house. You can’t buy more than one at a time. You can trade but there’s no monetary value in the transaction. There will be no renter, since everyone have one house for free. So, the demand for rental is 0, which mean no one will want to buy rental (even in the black market).[/quote]
Great idea!
One question, though: Who gets the big houses on the beach?
Probably the high-ranking members of the politburo.[/quote]
That’s a simple answer. Me and all the people I like, since I thought up the solution :-D. If it sounds absurd…
CA renter
February 5, 2012 @
2:53 PM
no_such_reality wrote:So CA [quote=no_such_reality]So CA renter, CalPers is one of the largest investors.
They ironically, own and have lost bundles in real estate.
Are you saying CalPers is victimizing people in order to provide the government worker pensions?
If CalPers doesn’t invest, then who is going lose that value so that the government workers can have their pension?
Alternately, my neighbors are in their 70s. Their house is worth north of $500,000, if not $700K. They bought it, 40 years ago, for price of a modern honda accord. Are they exploiting future buyers by reaping that gain?[/quote]
The vast majority of their real estate investments were in commercial/industrial RE, some multi-family (designed for rental) housing, and mortgage and related paper, not SFHs.
People who buy and sell a single home to live in are not speculators. I’m referring to investors who buy homes that they do not need nor want for personal shelter.
They already do. Go look up They already do. Go look up the IRS stats. Each tier of income pays higher effective income tax than those below. Including the same tier with capital gains.
The Buffet rule is punishing the 20% of successful people to go after the less than 1% of the 1%ers.
Income tax is income tax. Social security is social security. Marginal tax rate is not effective tax.
Now, when exactly does one go from being a deserving worker to that other camp?
I’m actually curious as your positions really are hypocrisy. Asset speculation is bad but
CalPERS is okay since only a portion of their stuff was residential, never mind those CDOs they were cleaned out on.
CA renter
February 6, 2012 @
1:09 PM
no_such_reality wrote:They [quote=no_such_reality]They already do. Go look up the IRS stats. Each tier of income pays higher effective income tax than those below. Including the same tier with capital gains.
The Buffet rule is punishing the 20% of successful people to go after the less than 1% of the 1%ers.
Income tax is income tax. Social security is social security. Marginal tax rate is not effective tax.
Now, when exactly does one go from being a deserving worker to that other camp?
I’m actually curious as your positions really are hypocrisy. Asset speculation is bad but
CalPERS is okay since only a portion of their stuff was residential, never mind those CDOs they were cleaned out on.[/quote]
Huh? Perhaps I’m not getting what you’re trying to say, but L/T cap gains and qualified dividends are NOT taxed progressively. A person earning $xxx,xxx++ in “earned income” will pay a higher tax rate than someone whose income comes from qualifying dividends and L/T cap gains.
As stated before, I don’t have nearly the same issues with “paper” asset speculators as I do with those who speculate on physical goods, especially goods that are basic necessities — like housing and food/commodities. The main complaint I have with “paper” asset speculators is that they often don’t pay the same tax rates as labor. That should change, IMHO.
no_such_reality
February 6, 2012 @
1:48 PM
Again IRS tax stats don’t Again IRS tax stats don’t agree with you. The Buffet’s rare. Semantically you are correct. The marginally tax rate on $100K is higher on income than capital gains. In reality it Is a moot point as both those with and without capital gains pay about 7% effective federal income tax if they are a home owner
Again, writing laws that affect 20% of the people extensive to chase the 1400 out of 110,000,000 tax filers is insane.
We favor capital gains because increasing capital is good. A nation with no capital ceases to exist.
UCGal
February 6, 2012 @
2:52 PM
no_such_reality wrote:Again [quote=no_such_reality]Again IRS tax stats don’t agree with you. The Buffet’s rare. Semantically you are correct. The marginally tax rate on $100K is higher on income than capital gains. In reality it Is a moot point as both those with and without capital gains pay about 7% effective federal income tax if they are a home owner
Again, writing laws that affect 20% of the people extensive to chase the 1400 out of 110,000,000 tax filers is insane.
We favor capital gains because increasing capital is good. A nation with no capital ceases to exist.[/quote]
Just a nit here… Being a homeowner doesn’t improve your tax rate. Having a mortgage does. Remember, only 2/3’s of homes have mortgages on them.
CA renter
February 6, 2012 @
2:52 PM
no_such_reality wrote:Again [quote=no_such_reality]Again IRS tax stats don’t agree with you. The Buffet’s rare. Semantically you are correct. The marginally tax rate on $100K is higher on income than capital gains. In reality it Is a moot point as both those with and without capital gains pay about 7% effective federal income tax if they are a home owner
Again, writing laws that affect 20% of the people extensive to chase the 1400 out of 110,000,000 tax filers is insane.
We favor capital gains because increasing capital is good. A nation with no capital ceases to exist.[/quote]
We’re not in agreement on this at all. Please direct us to those IRS stats.
As far as “capital” being good…that depends on how it’s being invested. Sometimes, it’s good; sometimes, it can be very damaging.
I’d say that labor is even more important than capital. Without labor, there is nothing to invest in. We should encourage productivity over speculative, zero-sum gambling.
bearishgurl
February 6, 2012 @
11:04 PM
pri and Allan, I think what pri and Allan, I think what CAR was trying to say here is that we DO all have choices where to live and the CA Legislature set up the “systems” we have in this state long ago. I can tell you from experience that these “systems” are and will be virtually impossible to change.
In many ways, CA’s laws (some Rules of Court and “trust deed” method of priority filing, for example) were at the forefront of other states’ later adoption of CA’s procedures.
Anyone can complain all they want about how unfair some of CA’s “systems” and laws are set up or how overly regulated it is but I would prefer to spend my time on more productive endeavors. After going to another (southwestern) state years ago and swimming in a popular reservoir there, I returned two days later on a miserable plane ride due to a double ear infection setting in. I later learned that the area of the reservoir I was swimming in had been grossly polluted for about 5-6 weeks before my arrival (but no signs were posted to that effect and boats were still pulling skiers in the area).
We take a lot of quality-of-life issues here in CA for granted. Try living in a state which is lightly regulated or unregulated in this regard and see how you like it. I, for one, appreciate all the thought and hard work by past legislatures that has gone into protecting our wilderness, lakes, rivers and open spaces. One only has to drive CA’s scenic roads to see exactly what this means for themselves.
CA renter
February 6, 2012 @
11:05 PM
Exactly, BG. Thank you for Exactly, BG. Thank you for stating it that way.
Allan from Fallbrook
February 6, 2012 @
11:30 PM
BG: To say that I take issue BG: To say that I take issue with California’s overly burdensome regulations is not to say that I don’t want any regulation at all. I favor SMALL government, not NO government at all.
I don’t doubt for a second that we could maintain California’s high quality of life and manage to do away with considerable excess. I’m also not in the crowd that demonizes public workers, but I take huge issue with the public sector unions and the politicians sitting on the same side of the table.
I was 10 when Jerry Brown first took over the governship in 1975 and graduating high school when he left in 1983. Since that time, we’ve seen California plummet in terms of education and skyrocket in terms of incarceration. Not to make too fine a point of it, but the two most powerful unions in California are the CTA (Ca. Teacher’s Assn) and CCPOA (corrections union).
We’ve been sold the false narrative that pushing back on unions, bloated bureacracies and stifling regulation is somehow a recipe for disaster. I’d argue that the opposite is true. We do desperately need change in this state and it starts with saying “enough is enough”.
CA renter
February 6, 2012 @
11:46 PM
Allan,
You’re neglecting to Allan,
You’re neglecting to mention the demographic changes that have occurred during that timeframe.
You’ve mentioned before that you attended private school, so you might have missed what happened in the 70s that changed many of California’s public schools.
Remember the bussing fiasco? Massive numbers of high-performing, upper/middle-class white kids were yanked out of urban schools and placed in private schools because they were going to be bussed from their local, middle-class schools to the blighted, urban, gang-infested inner-city schools. LA Unified, for one, never recovered from that. In the meantime, illegal immigrants with very little education and poor socio-economic backgrounds have flooded this state. In many districts, these “illegal immigrant” children (born here or not), represent the majority of students. Most of them have very little academic support at home, inferior English-speaking/comprehension skills, and many have to deal with living at or below the poverty line in busy, crowded conditions that are not at all conducive to studying and learning.
The teachers (and their unions) haven’t changed. The student body has changed…dramatically. That’s the #1 reason for the lower test scores, along with a much more rigorous curriculum than when you and I were attending school (belive it or not).
BTW, this also has a tremendous effect on our prison system.
CA renter
February 6, 2012 @
11:58 PM
Allan,
One more thing…you Allan,
One more thing…you (and others) keep saying that union members and their employers “sit on the same side of the table.”
Have you ever participated in union negotiations? If you have, you’d know that public unions are no more “on the same side of the table” as other PRIVATE businesses that contract with government entities, or lobbyists who are looking for favors of one sort or another. In many cases, the public employers have a rather caustic relationship with the unions.
Not trying to get into another war here (quite frankly, I’m exhausted), but people need to stop claiming things as fact when they aren’t true.
Unions have no more power than any other group. If a private group of people (companies, industries, individual citizens, etc.) want to raise funds or campaign for a particular politician, they are just as free to do so as the public employee unions are.
If you can find a way to guarantee that NOBODY gets favors of any kind from public entities/politicians, then I’d agree that we can abolish public unions. The problem with that line of thinking is that it’s impossible to create such an environment. You’re suggesting that the power void (left by unions or private entities, or whatever group leaves) would continue along, unfilled. That’s not going to happen…ever.
CA renter
February 7, 2012 @
12:37 AM
Whoops! “busing,” not Whoops! “busing,” not “bussing.”
Allan from Fallbrook
February 7, 2012 @
11:05 AM
CA renter wrote:Allan,
One [quote=CA renter]Allan,
One more thing…you (and others) keep saying that union members and their employers “sit on the same side of the table.”
Have you ever participated in union negotiations? If you have, you’d know that public unions are no more “on the same side of the table” as other PRIVATE businesses that contract with government entities, or lobbyists who are looking for favors of one sort or another. In many cases, the public employers have a rather caustic relationship with the unions.
Not trying to get into another war here (quite frankly, I’m exhausted), but people need to stop claiming things as fact when they aren’t true.
Unions have no more power than any other group. If a private group of people (companies, industries, individual citizens, etc.) want to raise funds or campaign for a particular politician, they are just as free to do so as the public employee unions are.
If you can find a way to guarantee that NOBODY gets favors of any kind from public entities/politicians, then I’d agree that we can abolish public unions. The problem with that line of thinking is that it’s impossible to create such an environment. You’re suggesting that the power void (left by unions or private entities, or whatever group leaves) would continue along, unfilled. That’s not going to happen…ever.[/quote]
CAR: I’m not looking to go to war here, either, so I promise to keep it civil, but I do have to disagree with you re: unions and strongly.
The CTA and CCPOA wield tremendous power (just look at the pushback on charter schools/school reform attempts and what we’re paying prison guards). I have quite a few friends in law enforcement (largely city cops and deputies) and I know of prison guards making six figure incomes with an average guard (based on seniority) earning in the $55K -65K range.
I’m hard pressed to understand the concerns if we did away with unions. Would we suddenly see headlines that read: “Child Labor Returns to the DMV!”? Given all of the labor regulations and agencies dedicated to safe and fair working environments (i.e. FLSA, OSHA, NLRB, etc) what, exactly, are the unions doing for their members?
In California, the various public sector unions and the Democratic Party have had a long and cozy relationship. Too long and too cozy, IMHO. Upon Jerry Brown’s return, to whom was he returning favors? I think we all know the answer here.
NSR is right: The system is broken. We, as a state, are effectively insolvent and have one of the lowest bond ratings in the country. This state was once an economic superpower and our schools were the envy of the world (and, no, that isn’t hyperbole). So what happened? More important, how do we fix it? The status quo ante is taking us further down the road that leads off the cliff. And, no, that isn’t hyperbole, either.
CA renter
February 27, 2012 @
4:43 AM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
CAR: I’m not looking to go to war here, either, so I promise to keep it civil, but I do have to disagree with you re: unions and strongly.
The CTA and CCPOA wield tremendous power (just look at the pushback on charter schools/school reform attempts and what we’re paying prison guards). I have quite a few friends in law enforcement (largely city cops and deputies) and I know of prison guards making six figure incomes with an average guard (based on seniority) earning in the $55K -65K range.
I’m hard pressed to understand the concerns if we did away with unions. Would we suddenly see headlines that read: “Child Labor Returns to the DMV!”? Given all of the labor regulations and agencies dedicated to safe and fair working environments (i.e. FLSA, OSHA, NLRB, etc) what, exactly, are the unions doing for their members?
In California, the various public sector unions and the Democratic Party have had a long and cozy relationship. Too long and too cozy, IMHO. Upon Jerry Brown’s return, to whom was he returning favors? I think we all know the answer here.
NSR is right: The system is broken. We, as a state, are effectively insolvent and have one of the lowest bond ratings in the country. This state was once an economic superpower and our schools were the envy of the world (and, no, that isn’t hyperbole). So what happened? More important, how do we fix it? The status quo ante is taking us further down the road that leads off the cliff. And, no, that isn’t hyperbole, either.[/quote]
Thank you for keeping it civil, Allan.
Yes, *some* unions have cozy relationships with *some* politicians. Likewise, some private companies and industry heads have cozy relationships with some politicians. At this point in time, I’d say that private industry has far more pull than unions do. This is evidenced by the fact that there has been an all-out PR war by private industry and their political puppets against public labor unions. The fact that you’re hearing so much about public unions is because of a very deliberate attack on the part of these private interests.
Here’s the deal: public resources are shrinking, and everyone who gets govt money knows this (public employees, private contractors, lobbyists for private industry, lobbyists for the “welfare” system, immigration groups, etc.). Where once they co-existed well enough (though didn’t necessarily get along), they are now viciously attacking one another — with private industry winning, as evidenced by the plethora of anti-govt/worker articles in the MSM, and posts, comments, etc. on multiple blogs across the internet.
Public employee unions have been losing power over the years. They lose this power to the “private” interests who are looking to take what the unions were getting…and then some. The people who are initiating the attacks on public unions are NOT taxpayer advocates. I’m not nearly as concerned about whether or not people agree with me WRT unions, but it’s imperative that people understand what’s going on and what the consequences will be.
If one has to weigh how much “Joe Sixpack” benefits from these various forces, there is no question in my mind that he benefits most from unions having their place “at the table.” They are the only ones putting a floor under wages and benefits (in the PRIVATE sector…because private sector employers have to compete with public employers), keeping money in the communities (80-90% of money spent on public employees is immeditately spent right back into the communities where the taxes came from), and keeping opportunities open for all **qualified** people to have a place “at the table” via public employment.
This is a power play among well-connected, entrenced groups. It’s naive of people to think this is about lowering their taxes. That’s extremely unlikely to happen, even if we eliminate all public employee unions tomorrow; some of us would contend that people would eventually end up paying more for less, as has happened many times over the years (most of the time?) when public assets and/or responsibilities are turned over to private industry (think HOAs, the parking debacle in Chicago, etc.).
As far as FLSA, OSHA, etc., if unions were to disappear tomorrow, I’d bet good money that those worker protections would be largely dismantled within two years. Private industry is trying to strip them down on a daily basis, and unions are the only ones fighting them and keeping the “teeth” in these regulations.
As far as the teachers’ unions, yes, they fight *privately-owned/controlled* charter schools, but are charter schools really any better, on average?
“In five case study states, charter schools
are less likely to meet state performance
standards than traditional public schools.
It is impossible to know from this study
whether that is because of the
performance of the schools, the prior
achievement of the students, or some
other factor. The study design does not
allow us to determine whether or not
traditional public schools are more
effective than charter schools.”
[edit: Just want to point out that I am not personally opposed to charters as long as they are public charters and held to the same standards as regular public schools.]
As for the prison guards…I don’t think they are overpaid at all. They have one of the most dangerous, depressing, stressful, frustrating jobs around; they’re exposed to the very worst of society on a daily basis, live with threats against them and their families, etc. There are plenty of private sector workers who do far less — much less dangerous, less stressful, less beneficial for society — and make just as much money.
all
February 7, 2012 @
11:12 AM
CA renter wrote: In many [quote=CA renter] In many cases, the public employers have a rather caustic relationship with the unions.
[/quote]
But then again, we have people like Michael Zucchet – former ‘legislative and community affairs director for the San Diego City Fire Fighters’, former councilman, former acting mayor, former convicted conspirator, fraudster and extortionist, as of 2009 ‘the general manager of the San Diego Municipal Employees Association, the union that represents city workers.’
no_such_reality
February 7, 2012 @
7:26 AM
BG, in the twenty plus years BG, in the twenty plus years I’ve been here, California has changed drastically. Some things like air quality are much better. Other things like education are worse.
I, like most that came here, just want Cali to be the great place that drew us here.
When it comes to places like LAUSD, it is broken. They admit to having a 35% drop out rate. We may not agree on how to fix, that is understandable. I know I dont have all the answers. What I find sad, and incredibly frustrating (not targeted at you), is the denial that LAUSD is broken. More money is the only solution some want to consider.
Then we look at prisons, we spend 50% more than the national average per inmate, twice what States like Florida and Texas spend, yet, the Feds got a decree and took over because it is mismanaged.
Res ipsa loquitur, it is broken.
Doing the same thing wont fix it and both parties have been beating the same drum for twenty plus years.
bearishgurl
February 7, 2012 @
10:08 AM
no_such_reality wrote:BG, in [quote=no_such_reality]BG, in the twenty plus years I’ve been here, California has changed drastically. Some things like air quality are much better. Other things like education are worse.
I, like most that came here, just want Cali to be the great place that drew us here.
When it comes to places like LAUSD, it is broken. They admit to having a 35% drop out rate. We may not agree on how to fix, that is understandable. I know I dont have all the answers. What I find sad, and incredibly frustrating (not targeted at you), is the denial that LAUSD is broken. More money is the only solution some want to consider.
Then we look at prisons, we spend 50% more than the national average per inmate, twice what States like Florida and Texas spend, yet, the Feds got a decree and took over because it is mismanaged.
Res ipsa loquitur, it is broken.
Doing the same thing wont fix it and both parties have been beating the same drum for twenty plus years.[/quote]
I think LAUSD would benefit from more charter schools. There are enough very well-heeled residents in that county to put more of these together, IMHO. In addition, the US/Mex border is still very porous, no matter how much the Federal government has “reorganized” it in recent years (now “Homeland Security”). This contributes to non-citizens using CA’s schools and justice system (jails and prisons).
The CA prison system has grown exponentially in the last 18 years for ONE REASON … the “Three Strikes” law.
…Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California — the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes involving under $950 in property as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has three prior convictions for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary and have served time in jail or prison for that offense. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, previous convictions for robbery and attempted robbery, sentence later reduced to six years).[9] In Rummel v. Estelle (1980), the Supreme Court upheld life with possible parole for a third-strike fraud felony in Texas, which arose from a refusal to repay $120.75 paid for air conditioning repair that was subsequently considered unsatisfactory.[10] Rummel was released a few months later, after pleading guilty.[11]
In California, first and second strikes are counted by individual charges, rather than individual cases, so a defendant may have been charged and convicted of “first and second strikes”, potentially many more than two such strikes, arising from a single case, even one that was disposed of prior to the passage of the law. Convictions from all 50 states and the federal courts at any point in the defendant’s past, as well as juvenile offenses if the defendant was age 16 or older that would otherwise be sealed can be counted (although once a juvenile record is sealed, it cannot be “unsealed”; it does not exist any longer and there is no longer any record to be used as a prior conviction), regardless of the date of offense or conviction or whether the conviction was the result of a plea bargain. It is up to the prosecutor’s discretion how many charges to levy against a defendant for a single criminal event.[12]
Defendants already convicted of two or more “strike” charges arising from one single case potentially years in the past, even if the defendant was a juvenile over 16 at the time, can be and have been charged and convicted with a third strike for any felony or any offense that could be charged as a felony (including “felony petty theft” or possession of a controlled substance prior to Proposition 36 (see below)) and given 25 years to life. (In the California Supreme Court decision People vs. Garcia, 1999, the Court withdrew residential burglary from the juvenile strike list. For a juvenile residential burglary to count it must also be adjudicated in combination with another felony such as armed robbery, which is a strike. Out of the over 43,000 second and third strikers in California prisons today, none has received a prior strike for residential burglary as a juvenile.)
It is possible for a defendant to be charged and convicted with multiple “third strikes” (technically third and fourth strikes) in a single case. It is also possible for multiple “third” strikes to arise from a single criminal act (or omission). As a result, a defendant may then be given two separate sentences that run consecutively,[13] which can make for a sentence of 50 (or 75, or 100) years to life…
CA voters passed proposition 184 in 1993 and later, in 2000, an amendment to CA’s “Three Strikes” law, Proposition 36. The passage of Prop 36 made court-ordered drug-treatment beds available to low-income two or three-strikers arrested for possession and/or sale (Diversion). Successful completion of a diversion program would often bump the recidivist’s “strike” down to a misdemeanor and thus keep him/her out of a life in prison.
A couple of cases where the defendants were considered “three-strikers” when their “third-strike” offense was not a violent crime went all the way to the USSC. Ten years later (in 2003), the USSC opined that they would not sit as a “Superlegislature” to CA’s legislature and that such sentences to do not violate the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Perhaps overzealous CA voters in 1993, disgusted with constantly hearing about violent crime and being victims of rampant property crimes, could not see the crushing burden of the “Three-Strikes Law” on CA taxpayers in years to come when they voted. Hence, Prop 36 (which has shorter-term costs of diversion built into it).
So we have these exorbitant bills running the CDC that you see today. We did it to ourselves, Piggs.
I for one would rather see repeat offenders of non-violent crimes rehabbed and back to work supporting (fully or partially) their families and paying off their fines and restitution. They can’t do any of this behind bars so we, the taxpayers have to pay relatives and strangers to raise their kids for them.
CA’s “Three-Strikes” law has far-reaching ramifications for CA taxpayers that Joe6P voter couldn’t see then and still can’t see now.
jstoesz
February 7, 2012 @
9:27 AM
just a fun thought just a fun thought experiment…what do you think would happen to the state if all the limited government type people up and left, as CAR seems to be suggesting.
an
February 7, 2012 @
9:36 AM
jstoesz wrote:just a fun [quote=jstoesz]just a fun thought experiment…what do you think would happen to the state if all the limited government type people up and left, as CAR seems to be suggesting.[/quote]
Someone suggested splitting the state into North and South California last year IIRC. That would be an interestingly similar correlation to the “limited government type people” up and leave. SD, OC and all the inland from Fresno down to the border will be South Cali and LA up to coast to SF will be North Cali. All the democrats in South Cali will move to North Cali and vice versa :-).
jstoesz
February 7, 2012 @
9:43 AM
I would contend that much of I would contend that much of the inland areas are rent seeking nearly as bad as the coastal areas.
no_such_reality
February 7, 2012 @
10:35 AM
Texas did three strikes in Texas did three strikes in 1973. Florida theirs in 1996, two years after ours. They both pay roughly half per inmate what California does.
bearishgurl
February 7, 2012 @
10:39 AM
no_such_reality wrote:Texas [quote=no_such_reality]Texas did three strikes in 1973. Florida theirs in 1996, two years after ours. They both pay roughly half per inmate what California does.[/quote]
What are TX and FL’s inmate populations relative to CA’s?
And was the language in their “Three-Strikes” laws such that the third strike, which could put one away for life, did NOT have to be a violent crime??
no_such_reality
February 7, 2012 @
11:07 AM
The costs are PER The costs are PER inmate.
Cali spends more on guards per inmate than FL spends on their whole system.
January 20, 2012 @ 9:39 AM
Ok. Let’s settle this once
Ok. Let’s settle this once and for all.
Who do you think is overpaid the most RELATIVE to what they produce…
This is not to say who is paid the most… It’s overpaid RELATIVE to what they produce.
*Pay means complete pay package. Not just salary.
So, yes this includes any incentives such as stock options, pensions, bonuses,etc.
*Please exclude wall street folks, because we already know they are overpaid.
*And yes, please do share based on your personal experience. I really want to see where the pent up disgust is festering.
You can guess which one I voted for…
January 20, 2012 @ 9:46 AM
Hard to say in general.
In
Hard to say in general.
In each category, there are people who are paid too much relative to what they economically produce.
But if I had to pick from the list, I’d say doctors. They have a captive audience, the least competition, and the barriers to entry that give them the ability to charge what they want.
January 20, 2012 @ 9:54 AM
Econ 101: If there are no
Econ 101: If there are no market restrictions on a good or service, the price will be exactly what it is “worth” to society.
In a truly free labor market, nobody is over/underpaid.
If you are looking for “overpaid,” look for market constraints and/or prices that are set by the government.
January 20, 2012 @ 10:21 AM
Anything Government related.
Anything Government related. They have little to no accountability so they all eventually turn in to lazy leaches.
At least docters and realtors have more accountability!
January 20, 2012 @ 10:24 AM
Many physicians are govt
Many physicians are govt employed.
January 20, 2012 @ 10:37 AM
In government, there’s is at
In government, there’s is at least transparency. What they get paid, we eventually find out.
In the private sector, when there are constraints, and when people have no choice but to use the services, the abuses can be much more egregious. And because the records are private, we never find out.
You can do without a lawyer or a mechanic if you don’t own a car. But when you get sick, you will go see the doctor. And if you can’t pay, the doctors will charge others to make up what he lost on you.
The reason health care is becoming an ever increasing share of the economy is because of the confluence of government mandates and the captive audience the health care industry enjoys. The health industry currently enjoys the privacy and profits of private enterprise and they enjoy the protection of government regulations as well.
January 20, 2012 @ 10:38 AM
briansd1 wrote:In government,
[quote=briansd1]In government, there’s is at least transparency. What they get paid, we eventually find out.
In the private sector, when there are constraints, and when people have no choice but to use the services, the abuses can be much more egregious. And because the records are private, we never find out.[/quote]
If “people have no choice but to use the service” then it’s not “private sector.”
Are you talking defense contractors and public utilities? They are a hybrid.
I don’t care what people in the pure private sector get paid in total. For my realtor, doctor, mechanic, etc. I only care about the price I pay for my personal business interactions with them. If they are making a killing off of everyone else, whatever.
Transparency in the public sector? Are you kidding? You need to have an accounting degree and would have to make it your part time job to figure out the actual cost of compensation for your local public safety or CalTrans employee. One of the big reasons there is a huge debate right now about public pensions is that nobody can even agree on how much they actually cost.
January 20, 2012 @ 10:51 AM
FWIW I voted for mortgage
FWIW I voted for mortgage brokers as I know many that make several times what we even the most succesful realtors make. What do mortgage brokers actually produce? The market produces the interest rates and they just handle the administrative tasks associated with a loan. If rates drop they refi you and make another commission. If you have a bunch of serial refinancers (FLU????) you can earn a mid 6 figure living in a falling interest rate environment without too much effort. Of course in a rising interest rate environment they can make nothing but the question was relative to what they produce.
January 20, 2012 @ 10:53 AM
The world has always hated
The world has always hated financial middlemen.
Sometimes with very bad outcomes.
(Yes, I just went Goodwin)
January 20, 2012 @ 10:54 AM
pri_dk wrote:
If “people have
[quote=pri_dk]
If “people have no choice but to use the service” then it’s not “private sector.”
Are you talking defense contractors and public utilities? They are a hybrid.
[/quote]
Defense contractors have free reigns for sure. but they are not on the list as a category.
[quote=pri_dk]
I don’t care what people in the pure private sector get paid in total. For my realtor, doctor, mechanic, etc. I only care about the price I pay for my personal business interactions with them. If they are making a killing off of everyone else, whatever.
[/quote]
the question was “relative to what they do” in general.
For Realtors it’s an interesting question. I know that some realtors don’t make a lot of money and some others are very well paid.
For my own personal business with a Realtor, he might be paid too much in my opinion, because I’m self-sufficient and he doesn’t have to do hand-holding. But I understand that the structure of the compensation is such that the Realtor gets to charge me for little work to compensate for doing a lot more work for others.
For my own personal interaction, government employees are the most overpaid. I don’t use the schools or the libraries, and I don’t believe in the high level of defense spending, so they are useless to me.
January 20, 2012 @ 11:58 AM
briansd1 wrote:the question
[quote=briansd1]the question was “relative to what they do” in general.
[/quote]
Correct, that was the question.
But it’s a silly question, because it’s entirely subjective what “someone does” is worth.
That’s the beauty of markets – the price is ultimately determined by everyone involved, collectively.
It’s the only way it can work. Every other system of pricing will, and has, failed.
January 20, 2012 @ 10:58 AM
It seems like cheating, but
It seems like cheating, but Politicians. The actual salaries collected aren’t always amazing, but let’s face it, once someone has been successfully elected once they are on the gravy train for life in terms of speaking fees or getting cushy jobs as “consultants” for various industries.
January 20, 2012 @ 12:20 PM
I know of fire fighters that
I know of fire fighters that haven’t had to respond to a fire in 10 years and bill double OT all the time and sleep for most of the shift and have no other duties. That seems pretty sweet.
Your real answer is going to be to find the most GOV intervened job and start there. I would say many environmental positions actually provide negative value because there are 6 levels of environmental regulation all looking at the same thing, trying to justify their existence and pay check. They are slowing down business in this country and sending jobs overseas to China for protecting some little insect that would have went extinct without man’s intervention to begin with. That’s actually costing the country millions of dollars per year.
January 20, 2012 @ 12:32 PM
markmax33 wrote:I know of
[quote=markmax33]I know of fire fighters that haven’t had to respond to a fire in 10 years and bill double OT all the time and sleep for most of the shift and have no other duties.[/quote]
No you don’t.
January 20, 2012 @ 4:46 PM
pri_dk wrote:markmax33
[quote=pri_dk][quote=markmax33]I know of fire fighters that haven’t had to respond to a fire in 10 years and bill double OT all the time and sleep for most of the shift and have no other duties.[/quote]
No you don’t.[/quote]
Just saw this after I wrote my post.
Thank you, Pri. Finally, we can agree on something!
January 21, 2012 @ 10:21 AM
pri_dk wrote:markmax33
[quote=pri_dk][quote=markmax33]I know of fire fighters that haven’t had to respond to a fire in 10 years and bill double OT all the time and sleep for most of the shift and have no other duties.[/quote]
No you don’t.[/quote]
100% I do. Why would I say it?
January 20, 2012 @ 12:32 PM
dup
dup
January 20, 2012 @ 4:44 PM
markmax33 wrote:I know of
[quote=markmax33]I know of fire fighters that haven’t had to respond to a fire in 10 years and bill double OT all the time and sleep for most of the shift and have no other duties. That seems pretty sweet.
[/quote]
I’m calling bullshit.
1. If they haven’t responded to a fire in 10 years, name the department and let’s dig up the stats, shall we?
Not only that, but fire is just one type of call. Most of their calls are medical aids. How many of those are they running?
2. There is no such thing as “double O/T.”
3. No firefighter is allowed to “sleep for most of their shift,” nor do they “have no other duties.”
This is the kind of shit that gets put out there on the internet, and then equally stupid people (who are afraid of reading and research) jump on it, repeat it, and soon enough…it’s quoted as “fact.”
If you’re going to post (and this goes to those who don’t even understand how pensions are paid or how/why they are earned, or what concessions were made in order to get them, etc.), at least know what you’re talking about. Otherwise, STFU.
January 20, 2012 @ 7:57 PM
CA renter][quote=markmax33
[quote=CA renter][quote=markmax33]
3. No firefighter is allowed to “sleep for most of their shift,” nor do they “have no other duties.”
.[/quote]
How much of their shift do they get to sleep for?
Did San Deigo do away with the 24 hours on scheduling where they are paid to be in the station and on-call and expected to respond, but they do not have to be awak for the full 24 hours.
January 21, 2012 @ 10:22 AM
no_such_reality][quote=CA
[quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter][quote=markmax33]
3. No firefighter is allowed to “sleep for most of their shift,” nor do they “have no other duties.”
.[/quote]
How much of their shift do they get to sleep for?
Did San Deigo do away with the 24 hours on scheduling where they are paid to be in the station and on-call and expected to respond, but they do not have to be awak for the full 24 hours.[/quote]
I didn’t say where it was. It’s not in San Diego. It 100% happens.
January 20, 2012 @ 3:09 PM
Why aren’t CEOs on the list?
Why aren’t CEOs on the list? They get my vote.
January 20, 2012 @ 6:40 PM
svelte wrote:Why aren’t CEOs
[quote=svelte]Why aren’t CEOs on the list? They get my vote.[/quote]
Svelte: +1 on that. You want to truly discuss the issue of income inequality, that’s the first place to look and it opens up the whole can of worms on incestuous boards of directors voting massive (and completely out of line with performance) pay and (more important) stock/option packages.
There are literally hundreds of publicly owned US companies with outrageous CEO (and C-level) compensation packages that confer unbelievable sums of money for subpar performances.
I’d also point to private equity groups (yes, like Bain), hedgies and consultancies (think McKinsey & Co) where this type of outsize compensation leads directly to value and asset destruction (think Lampert and Kmart/Sears). Essentially people being paid to destroy companies and jobs while transferring millions to those responsible for that destruction.
January 20, 2012 @ 6:59 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=svelte]Why aren’t CEOs on the list? They get my vote.[/quote]
Svelte: +1 on that. You want to truly discuss the issue of income inequality, that’s the first place to look and it opens up the whole can of worms on incestuous boards of directors voting massive (and completely out of line with performance) pay and (more important) stock/option packages.
There are literally hundreds of publicly owned US companies with outrageous CEO (and C-level) compensation packages that confer unbelievable sums of money for subpar performances.
I’d also point to private equity groups (yes, like Bain), hedgies and consultancies (think McKinsey & Co) where this type of outsize compensation leads directly to value and asset destruction (think Lampert and Kmart/Sears). Essentially people being paid to destroy companies and jobs while transferring millions to those responsible for that destruction.[/quote]
Because we already know they are overpaid.
January 20, 2012 @ 8:43 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=svelte]Why aren’t CEOs on the list? They get my vote.[/quote]
Svelte: +1 on that. You want to truly discuss the issue of income inequality, that’s the first place to look and it opens up the whole can of worms on incestuous boards of directors voting massive (and completely out of line with performance) pay and (more important) stock/option packages.
There are literally hundreds of publicly owned US companies with outrageous CEO (and C-level) compensation packages that confer unbelievable sums of money for subpar performances.
I’d also point to private equity groups (yes, like Bain), hedgies and consultancies (think McKinsey & Co) where this type of outsize compensation leads directly to value and asset destruction (think Lampert and Kmart/Sears). Essentially people being paid to destroy companies and jobs while transferring millions to those responsible for that destruction.[/quote]
Could not agree more.
January 20, 2012 @ 10:07 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=svelte]Why aren’t CEOs on the list? They get my vote.[/quote]
Svelte: +1 on that. You want to truly discuss the issue of income inequality, that’s the first place to look and it opens up the whole can of worms on incestuous boards of directors voting massive (and completely out of line with performance) pay and (more important) stock/option packages.
There are literally hundreds of publicly owned US companies with outrageous CEO (and C-level) compensation packages that confer unbelievable sums of money for subpar performances.
I’d also point to private equity groups (yes, like Bain), hedgies and consultancies (think McKinsey & Co) where this type of outsize compensation leads directly to value and asset destruction (think Lampert and Kmart/Sears). Essentially people being paid to destroy companies and jobs while transferring millions to those responsible for that destruction.[/quote]
I also agree. But CEOs weren’t on the list.
But contrast that to what pri_dk said earlier:
[quote=pri_dk]Econ 101: If there are no market restrictions on a good or service, the price will be exactly what it is “worth” to society.
In a truly free labor market, nobody is over/underpaid.
[/quote]
I don’t believe in a perfectly free market.
Supposedly, if Apple can sell millions of iPhones, the exec could pay themselves anything they want.
Or supposedly, if a movie star can sell tens of millions of tickets, that star could make hundreds of millions.
I think there are big flaws in our society. There’s the herd mentality, momentum, psychology and structural problems that crowd out competiion and impede that ideally free market
I don’t know what the solutions are, but I think that it’s neither right nor natural that certain people enjoy such disproportionate amounts of wealth.
January 21, 2012 @ 8:15 AM
briansd1 wrote:
I don’t know
[quote=briansd1]
I don’t know what the solutions are, but I think that it’s neither right nor natural that certain people enjoy such disproportionate amounts of wealth.[/quote]
I both agree and disagree.
I am a fan of the scandavian system for fines. I find income taxes appalling, primarily because the definition of income is so capricious.
I’d love to see the country move to an asset tax and eliminate income taxes. You know, those things everybody hates, like Vehicle License fee. Put it on tangible and intangible assets. If it has a record of ownership, asset tax. Everybody would pay the same rate. And you pay for having more stuff or assets.
I find the incestous board/C-level relationships are many firms appalling. Compensation is a joke. Frankly, the more firms I’ve worked for, the more disdain I have for the C-level.
IMHO, the C-level has forgotten, they are an EMPLOYEE. I don’t mind founders like the kids of Google getting outrageously rich. Gates too, although Gates’ story is a little muddier. However, the current corporate hack at the top of most of the publicly traded larger companies are just EMPLOYEEs. They don’t think it.
Then we have the other side, the Kobe’s and Oprah’s. Oprah made herself, she’s tough, if she says buy a book, two million people march out and buy the book. Then you have Kobe, yeah, he was born with talent, but he also worked his backside off. Tiger too. Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift? Well… the line got blurry on are they just a corporate product or bust their butt. Probably both.
In the end, your kids need to understand the herd and the appstore. There are 7+ billion on the planet and soon they all can get to the appstore.
January 21, 2012 @ 10:06 AM
briansd1 wrote:
I don’t
[quote=briansd1]
I don’t believe in a perfectly free market.
Supposedly, if Apple can sell millions of iPhones, the exec could pay themselves anything they want.
Or supposedly, if a movie star can sell tens of millions of tickets, that star could make hundreds of millions.
I think there are big flaws in our society. There’s the herd mentality, momentum, psychology and structural problems that crowd out competiion and impede that ideally free market
I don’t know what the solutions are, but I think that it’s neither right nor natural that certain people enjoy such disproportionate amounts of wealth.[/quote]
Brian: That’s because there is no such thing as a perfectly free market.
You then go on to opine that’s neither right nor natural that certain people enjoy such disproportionate amounts of wealth.
Why? Because its unfair? I think its neither right nor natural that George Clooney is better looking than I am (admittedly not by much!), but, hey, them’s the breaks. And who or what becomes the arbiter of “natural” and “right”? The gubment? A blue ribbon committee? A group of Chinese Communist apparatchiks?
If you bust your ass and you earn it, I could care less how much someone has, in terms of wealth. My point focused on those C-level execs that are being paid monstrous comp packages for subpar performance, or who are actually helping drive their company into the ground.
For a Progressive, you ain’t so big on individual liberty, are you?
January 20, 2012 @ 3:10 PM
Actually, you didn’t include
Actually, you didn’t include any executive titles at all on the list!! Wazzup with that flu?
January 20, 2012 @ 3:20 PM
I believe every category has
I believe every category has overpaid people. Who doesn’t know someone that’s just being a drone at work and going through the motions?
As for Government Safety Workers and Prison Guards, to be honest, I don’t care if we need to pay them $100K. Let’s be honest about what we pay them.
It’s currently completely dishonest IMHO. I do care that they have fat pensions. I’d rather they, and every other government worker had a 401K. We could do a lavish match, at least it would be honest.
When virtually everyone that isn’t new hire is exceeding the publish max pay, there are problems.
January 21, 2012 @ 10:26 AM
I think I am most overpaid.
I think I am most overpaid. (But don’t tell that to my boss.)
January 21, 2012 @ 11:08 AM
For all the complaints of it
For all the complaints of it sucking up so much of our GDP, why no category for health care workers?
January 21, 2012 @ 12:40 PM
outtamojo wrote:For all the
[quote=outtamojo]For all the complaints of it sucking up so much of our GDP, why no category for health care workers?[/quote]
Maybe because health care workers, for the most part, don’t make any more money today than they did 20 years ago. The money in health care is not falling into the pockets of the people that actually provide the care. It’s going into the pockets of big pharma, DME and hi-tech medical equipment manufacturers, medical insurance companies, for-profit hospitals and clinics. Not the doctors, the nurses, the therapists, the technicians and other allied health care workers that actually provide the care.
January 21, 2012 @ 5:08 PM
SK in CV wrote:outtamojo
[quote=SK in CV][quote=outtamojo]For all the complaints of it sucking up so much of our GDP, why no category for health care workers?[/quote]
Maybe because health care workers, for the most part, don’t make any more money today than they did 20 years ago….
….Not the doctors……[/quote]
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/the-top-1-executives-doctors-and-bankers/
Per the NYT article, medical professionals formed 15.7% of the top 1% in 2005, the second-biggest group inside that elite 1% group. I doubt many of those “medical professionals” are nurses or EMTs. We are talking doctors here.
January 21, 2012 @ 5:09 PM
patientrenter
[quote=patientrenter]
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/the-top-1-executives-doctors-and-bankers/
Per the NYT article, medical professionals formed 15.7% of the top 1% in 2005, the second-biggest group inside that elite 1 group. I doubt many of those “medical professionals” are nurses or EMTs. We are talking doctors here.[/quote]
I wonder what that % was 20 years ago. I suspect, though I certainly don’t know, that 20 years ago, medical professionals made up a higher % of that top 1%. And yes, we are talking doctors. Given the years of study they put in, particularly in comparison with every other profession, they probably should be the most highly compensated.
January 21, 2012 @ 11:02 PM
Who are the most underpaid
Who are the most underpaid people out there?
January 21, 2012 @ 11:13 PM
Jacarandoso wrote:Who are the
[quote=Jacarandoso]Who are the most underpaid people out there?[/quote]
enginerds.
I was reviewing a renter prospect. He’s a line worker for an electric company (not SDGE). His hourly wage is about $38. But he regularly puts in overtime…Roughly my normal hours…Last year, he reported about $120k/year. Also, has health benefits, matching retirement/etc..Young guy….No wonder no more folks want to work as enginerds here in U.S. Folks who do labor can do just as well.
January 22, 2012 @ 12:46 AM
Jacarandoso wrote:Who are the
[quote=Jacarandoso]Who are the most underpaid people out there?[/quote]
Day laborers…people who do the really hard work that most of us don’t want to do and wouldn’t do for all the money in the world, if we can help it.
January 22, 2012 @ 12:43 AM
SK in CV wrote:patientrenter
[quote=SK in CV][quote=patientrenter]
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/the-top-1-executives-doctors-and-bankers/
Per the NYT article, medical professionals formed 15.7% of the top 1% in 2005, the second-biggest group inside that elite 1 group. I doubt many of those “medical professionals” are nurses or EMTs. We are talking doctors here.[/quote]
I wonder what that % was 20 years ago. I suspect, though I certainly don’t know, that 20 years ago, medical professionals made up a higher % of that top 1%. And yes, we are talking doctors. Given the years of study they put in, particularly in comparison with every other profession, they probably should be the most highly compensated.[/quote]
I agree 100%.
If anyone “deserves” to make really good money, it would be have to be doctors.
January 22, 2012 @ 9:04 PM
CA renter wrote:SK in CV
[quote=CA renter][quote=SK in CV][quote=patientrenter]
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/the-top-1-executives-doctors-and-bankers/
Per the NYT article, medical professionals formed 15.7% of the top 1% in 2005, the second-biggest group inside that elite 1 group. I doubt many of those “medical professionals” are nurses or EMTs. We are talking doctors here.[/quote]
I wonder what that % was 20 years ago. I suspect, though I certainly don’t know, that 20 years ago, medical professionals made up a higher % of that top 1%. And yes, we are talking doctors. Given the years of study they put in, particularly in comparison with every other profession, they probably should be the most highly compensated.[/quote]
I agree 100%.
If anyone “deserves” to make really good money, it would be have to be doctors.[/quote]
Oops!! You said this just afew posts back. Situational ethics at its best wouldn’t you say?
January 22, 2012 @ 10:19 PM
sdrealtor wrote:CA renter
[quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=SK in CV][quote=patientrenter]
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/the-top-1-executives-doctors-and-bankers/
Per the NYT article, medical professionals formed 15.7% of the top 1% in 2005, the second-biggest group inside that elite 1 group. I doubt many of those “medical professionals” are nurses or EMTs. We are talking doctors here.[/quote]
I wonder what that % was 20 years ago. I suspect, though I certainly don’t know, that 20 years ago, medical professionals made up a higher % of that top 1%. And yes, we are talking doctors. Given the years of study they put in, particularly in comparison with every other profession, they probably should be the most highly compensated.[/quote]
I agree 100%.
If anyone “deserves” to make really good money, it would be have to be doctors.[/quote]
Oops!! You said this just afew posts back. Situational ethics at its best wouldn’t you say?[/quote]
Not sure what you’re referring to. Is this comment directed to me or someone else?
[edited]
January 22, 2012 @ 1:50 AM
Realtors are the 21st century
Realtors are the 21st century version of used car salesman.
January 22, 2012 @ 9:51 AM
My doctor wife had a super
My doctor wife had a super high pay offer but it was in Hobbs nm. (300,000/yr about 10 y ago. But the pay was like a third Of that 100,000 or a bit more in southern cal.
Dr pay is very variable.
I begged her to move to Hobbs!
Couldve been awesome.
I’d be farming pigs. And driving a big truck!
January 22, 2012 @ 9:52 AM
Plus houses were kinda cheap
Plus houses were kinda cheap in Hobbs.
January 22, 2012 @ 10:05 AM
Dr 100,000 or a bit more in
Dr 100,000 or a bit more in southern cal
Fireman 150,000 (actual client living in Murrieta) in southern cal
That sounds about right
January 22, 2012 @ 10:49 AM
MDs at 100K in So Cal? How
MDs at 100K in So Cal? How about RN’s at $140K in Bay area and central coast?
January 22, 2012 @ 11:11 AM
Ok 100,000 ten yes ago was on
Ok 100,000 ten yes ago was on the low side but that was one 9-5 type job she interviewed for… I think 120. So let’s says half of Hobbs. Too many docs in southern calif.
The decent paying gigs nowadays require many hours…very hard work.
If I’d married her teacher/sister we’d have more money. But I couldn’t have lived with her. Nope. My kid noted the other day that he thought I had to marry my wife, that no one in the world couldve married me, cause no one else could have tolerated my weirdness.
Definitely not her sister, though, that’s true.
January 22, 2012 @ 11:24 AM
Walter..I hope you’re kidding
Walter..I hope you’re kidding about your wife…
Here’s how fvcked up things are. I just re-reviewed one of the rental applicants in L.A.
Guy is late twenties.. He works for the power company..He is a linesman (I guess he lays power line and fixes them). His salary only pay last year (W2) was $115k, including overtime.. And this is at a private power company…Does not include 401k, nor does it include any other benefits that I cannot see from the applicant.
(Side note…We are rejecting the applicant…While the guy’s credit is not terrible, the spouse’s credit is ridiculously attrocious), student loan aside, the person has unsecured debt up the ying yang…
I don’t know…When manual labor jobs in this country ends up being more than doctors/engineers/technology etc, we have a serious fvcked up situation imho…
And without adieu, I present you this very interesting article in the NYT times about why there’s no way in hell high tech manufacturing jobs are ever going to come back to the U.S….
Read, my iPhone lovers… It’s a great article…Makes you definitely think twice about things…. Welcome to the sweatshops of tomorrow…. F.U. apple.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?partner=yahoofinance
How U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work
When Barack Obama joined Silicon Valley’s top luminaries for dinner in California last February, each guest was asked to come with a question for the president.
But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States?
Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.
Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.
Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.
The president’s question touched upon a central conviction at Apple. It isn’t just that workers are cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their American counterparts that “Made in the U.S.A.” is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.
…..
Apple employs 43,000 people in the United States and 20,000 overseas, a small fraction of the over 400,000 American workers at General Motors in the 1950s, or the hundreds of thousands at General Electric in the 1980s. Many more people work for Apple’s contractors: an additional 700,000 people engineer, build and assemble iPads, iPhones and Apple’s other products. But almost none of them work in the United States. Instead, they work for foreign companies in Asia, Europe and elsewhere, at factories that almost all electronics designers rely upon to build their wares.
¶ “Apple’s an example of why it’s so hard to create middle-class jobs in the U.S. now,” said Jared Bernstein, who until last year was an economic adviser to the White House.
¶ “If it’s the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.”
¶ Apple executives say that going overseas, at this point, is their only option. One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhone manufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.
¶ A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.
¶ “The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.”
January 22, 2012 @ 2:28 PM
Well, linemen do really
Well, linemen do really well.. I have a few in my extended family.
There are low paid doc jobs out there for those who won’t take call.
And call sucks!!!!
January 22, 2012 @ 3:16 PM
If a lineman screws up on the
If a lineman screws up on the job, it’s very possible that someone (or many people) can get killed.
Cool videos of something a lineman might do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s8x2efUY5c
………….
Note how “labor organinzations and safety standards” change things for the better.
“In electricity’s early days, about one in four line workers suffered fatal job-related injuries, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Fatalities are rare today, but line workers still focus on safety first.
Lakeland Electric’s state-certified apprenticeship program for linemen takes four years to complete and includes rigorous training requirements, said Robert Padgett, who runs the program’s training center.”
“Linemen often work long hours, especially when bad weather causes problems. When wind tore down several power poles on U.S. 98 South in June, Goostree and other employees were at the site immediately and worked through the night. Goostree worked 25 hours straight supervising the repairs.”
http://www.theledger.com/article/20100719/NEWS/7195001?p=all&tc=pgall
——————
Pay isn’t necessarily determined by the amount of college education one has. It’s also determined by the physical requirements for the job, the number of qualified people who can do the job, how dangerous it is, whether or not it requires a lot of traveling, etc.
Doctors (especially surgeons) are some of the best paid people out there, as it should be. But other than that, there are a number of people who are paid very well who do not have degrees.
As you know, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Steve Jobs didn’t graduate from college, and they’ve certainly made more money than most of us could ever dream of. Of course, without linemen, we probably never would have heard of these folks. 😉
There are many actors, entrepreneurs, salespeople, etc. who make a lot of money and don’t have degrees, and many don’t even have above-average I.Q.s.
There are many reasons why people make exceptionally good money, and college is only one factor. As we all know, having a college degree doesn’t guarantee that you’ll be making a decent living, nor should it.
————–
As far as the tech jobs not coming back…this is exactly what manufacturing workers have been dealing with for decades. It sucks, big-time, but unless Americans wake up and grasp what’s going on, it will only continue until it sucks down every industry. Nobody is immune.
We are all going to be living in “work dormitories” where we can be stirred up in the middle of the night with a biscuit and tea so that we can begin another 12-18 hour shift for $2.00/day. Time to wake up and FORCE our politicians to fix our trade and tax policies so that our consumer dollars support companies and countries that protect workers and the environment. Until then, BUY AMERICAN!
January 22, 2012 @ 4:00 PM
He’ll, a kid in my Relatives
He’ll, a kid in my Relatives linemen training class died climbing a pole in class.
Negligence on part of school. Supposed to be a safety at the top that stops you.
Not there, and his rope went up n over and he fell to his death.
Linemen are serious dudes.
Tshirt seen at family function:
even firemen need heroes (local union linemen info in smaller print)
ever heard of the linemen rodeos?
January 22, 2012 @ 4:54 PM
One more note about the
One more note about the lineman’s pay: if he worked a lot of overtime, $100K+ isn’t at all surprising. Those guys are the ones out there when there are storms, fires, floods, etc. I’m sure there is a lot of O/T involved, and it would likely be in situations and conditions that very few people would want to work in.
January 23, 2012 @ 8:20 AM
CA Renter wrote:If a lineman
[quote=CA Renter]If a lineman screws up on the job, it’s very possible that someone (or many people) can get killed.
[/quote]
[quote=walterwhite]He’ll, a kid in my Relatives linemen training class died climbing a pole in class…Linemen are serious dudes.
[/quote]
Most people don’t realize that their death rate is much higher than policemen or firemen. It’s 35 per 100,000 workers.
They aren’t broken out as a separate category in the official US Gov stats, which shows the following as having the top 10 death rates:
(per 100,000 workers) (occupation)
116 Fishing workers
91 Loggers
70 Pilots / Flight Engineers
41 Farmers / Ranchers
38 Mining machine operators
32 Roofers
29 Refuse workers
21 Sales drivers / Truck drivers
20 Maintenance workers / machine installers
18 Police / sheriff
Note firemen aren’t in the top 10.
Military would be in top 10, but their stats aren’t included in the US gov figures.
January 23, 2012 @ 9:03 AM
svelte wrote:Note firemen
[quote=svelte]Note firemen aren’t in the top 10.[/quote]
We’ve discussed the stats on “dangerous” jobs here before. The fact that many more jobs are more dangerous than firefighters is well-established. But few people are aware of this data.
Public perception is out of whack with reality (although they do have TV shows about fishermen and loggers now, maybe that will help…)
[quote]Military would be in top 10, but their stats aren’t included in the US gov figures.[/quote]
It may not be as high as you think. There are well over a million people on active duty. The actual probability of any single person in the military being killed is incredibly low (of course this varies tremendously with role and location.)
Statistically, the most dangerous “job” in the past decade has probably been Iraqi Civilian.
January 23, 2012 @ 7:01 PM
pri_dk wrote:svelte
[quote=pri_dk][quote=svelte]Note firemen aren’t in the top 10.[/quote]
We’ve discussed the stats on “dangerous” jobs here before. The fact that many more jobs are more dangerous than firefighters is well-established. But few people are aware of this data.
Public perception is out of whack with reality (although they do have TV shows about fishermen and loggers now, maybe that will help…)
[quote]Military would be in top 10, but their stats aren’t included in the US gov figures.[/quote]
It may not be as high as you think. There are well over a million people on active duty. The actual probability of any single person in the military being killed is incredibly low (of course this varies tremendously with role and location.)
Statistically, the most dangerous “job” in the past decade has probably been Iraqi Civilian.[/quote]
Firefighting was one of the most dangerous jobs, but the statistics have been improving over time. Do you know WHY firefighting now ranks lower than these other professions WRT how “dangerous” it is? (Hint: it’s for the same reasons electrical workers have lower injury/fatality rates than they used to.)
January 22, 2012 @ 8:40 PM
flu wrote:
Read, my iPhone
[quote=flu]
Read, my iPhone lovers… It’s a great article…Makes you definitely think twice about things…. Welcome to the sweatshops of tomorrow…. F.U. apple.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?partner=yahoofinance
How U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work
When Barack Obama joined Silicon Valley’s top luminaries for dinner in California last February, each guest was asked to come with a question for the president.
But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States?
Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.
Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.
Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.
The president’s question touched upon a central conviction at Apple. It isn’t just that workers are cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their American counterparts that “Made in the U.S.A.” is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.
…..
Apple employs 43,000 people in the United States and 20,000 overseas, a small fraction of the over 400,000 American workers at General Motors in the 1950s, or the hundreds of thousands at General Electric in the 1980s. Many more people work for Apple’s contractors: an additional 700,000 people engineer, build and assemble iPads, iPhones and Apple’s other products. But almost none of them work in the United States. Instead, they work for foreign companies in Asia, Europe and elsewhere, at factories that almost all electronics designers rely upon to build their wares.
¶ “Apple’s an example of why it’s so hard to create middle-class jobs in the U.S. now,” said Jared Bernstein, who until last year was an economic adviser to the White House.
¶ “If it’s the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.”
¶ Apple executives say that going overseas, at this point, is their only option. One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhone manufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.
¶ A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.
¶ “The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.”
[/quote]
“Apple’s margins have widened at the expense of its main supplier as Foxconn Technology Group cuts prices to retain orders for the iPhone and iPad. The profit spread at Hon Hai Precision Industry, Foxconn’s Taipei-listed flagship, has narrowed to 1.5 percent since the debut of the iPhone in June 2007 as Apple’s operating margin more than doubled over the past five years, surpassing 30 percent.“
“Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s margins have widened at the expense of its main supplier as Foxconn Technology Group cuts prices to retain orders for iPhones and iPads.
The CHART OF THE DAY compares the operating margins of Apple, which has surpassed 30 percent, and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Foxconn’s Taipei-listed flagship. Hon Hai’s profit spread narrowed after the iPhone debut in June 2007 and has tightened further since April 2010, when the iPad tablet computer went on sale, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Operating margin measures the profit a company makes from its core business, excluding one-time items and investment gains.
Apple’s margin has more than doubled the past five years, spurred by its smartphones and tablets, which now generate more than half of the Cupertino, California-based company’s revenue. Hon Hai has boosted its workforce, raised wages and expanded factories to keep up with demand during the same period, though not fully passing along its additional costs, the data show.
Foxconn Technology Group, which employs more than 1.1 million people worldwide, also assembles Sony Corp. televisions, Hewlett-Packard Co. computers and Microsoft Corp. game consoles.
Hon Hai’s operating margin declined in most of the quarters in which Apple’s rose and widened when its main customer’s narrowed, the data show. Taipei-based Pegatron Corp. (4938), the only other supplier of iPhones, also has seen its operating margin decline since getting orders for the handsets, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-04/apple-profit-margins-rise-at-foxconn-s-expense.html
——————-
Someone, please tell me again how “the free market” and “capitalism” aren’t zero-sum in many/most cases.
You’ve got to love how Apple execs claim that going overseas “is their only option.” Bullshit! How about making a smaller profit margin — while still making massive amounts of money! — so that the people who do the work are rewarded, instead.
What’s funny is that these people at the top who have sucked all the blood out of the economy will complain about how “~50% of the population doesn’t pay income taxes!” Well, DUH! You’ve taken away their income! They CAN’T pay income taxes!
January 23, 2012 @ 8:05 AM
CA renter wrote:You’ve got to
[quote=CA renter]You’ve got to love how Apple execs claim that going overseas “is their only option.” Bullshit! How about making a smaller profit margin — while still making massive amounts of money! — so that the people who do the work are rewarded, instead.[/quote]
CalSTRS Holdings:
http://www.calstrs.com/investments/portfolio/usStock.asp
APPLE INC $987,036,000
CalPERS, another billion-dollar position:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-08/calpers-holdings-in-3rd-quarter-13f-alert.html
So please tell us: Who is being rewarded?
January 23, 2012 @ 10:25 PM
pri_dk wrote:CA renter
[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]You’ve got to love how Apple execs claim that going overseas “is their only option.” Bullshit! How about making a smaller profit margin — while still making massive amounts of money! — so that the people who do the work are rewarded, instead.[/quote]
CalSTRS Holdings:
http://www.calstrs.com/investments/portfolio/usStock.asp
APPLE INC $987,036,000
CalPERS, another billion-dollar position:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-08/calpers-holdings-in-3rd-quarter-13f-alert.html
So please tell us: Who is being rewarded?[/quote]
It doesn’t matter. Wrong is wrong, and right is right. The people who do the actual work should be rewarded at least as well as those who finance it.
January 25, 2012 @ 11:58 AM
CA renter wrote:It doesn’t
[quote=CA renter]It doesn’t matter. Wrong is wrong, and right is right. The people who do the actual work should be rewarded at least as well as those who finance it.[/quote]
I’m so glad this is not happening here in the US. I’ve lived in a country where they’ve tried this. Most people don’t like it except for those who are well connected.
January 25, 2012 @ 11:59 AM
So when do we declare a
So when do we declare a winner?
January 26, 2012 @ 1:30 PM
CA renter wrote:Someone,
[quote=CA renter]Someone, please tell me again how “the free market” and “capitalism” aren’t zero-sum in many/most cases.
[/quote]
Are you really that blind? The free market and capitalism creates NEW. The App Store is a good example. Tell us how that’s a zero sum game? Zero sum game means someone only gains at someone elses loss.
The second easiest place to see the free market in action, even though its heavily subsidized, is the grocery store. The more free the marketplace, the more abundant the food is. Countries with corruption and heavy hands in the market invariably limit over-all food production.
January 26, 2012 @ 3:13 PM
no_such_reality wrote:CA
[quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter]Someone, please tell me again how “the free market” and “capitalism” aren’t zero-sum in many/most cases.
[/quote]
Are you really that blind? The free market and capitalism creates NEW. The App Store is a good example. Tell us how that’s a zero sum game? Zero sum game means someone only gains at someone elses loss.
The second easiest place to see the free market in action, even though its heavily subsidized, is the grocery store. The more free the marketplace, the more abundant the food is. Countries with corruption and heavy hands in the market invariably limit over-all food production.[/quote]
***Sometimes*** it creates new markets, expands production capacity, and/or makes things more efficient.
Lately, the “free market” has been more about buying and selling assets at artificially inflated prices (zero sum) than about “growing” anything of value.
January 26, 2012 @ 5:55 PM
CA renter
[quote=CA renter]
***Sometimes*** it creates new markets, expands production capacity, and/or makes things more efficient.
Lately, the “free market” has been more about buying and selling assets at artificially inflated prices (zero sum) than about “growing” anything of value.[/quote]
define “inflated prices”.
price is only as high as the buyer will bear.
there’s no zero sum game here.
January 26, 2012 @ 8:50 PM
bobby wrote:
define “inflated
[quote=bobby]
define “inflated prices”.
price is only as high as the buyer will bear.
there’s no zero sum game here.[/quote]
Prices are inflated when demand is artificially inflated.
Did you miss the housing bubble?
January 27, 2012 @ 3:37 AM
bobby wrote:CA renter
[quote=bobby][quote=CA renter]
***Sometimes*** it creates new markets, expands production capacity, and/or makes things more efficient.
Lately, the “free market” has been more about buying and selling assets at artificially inflated prices (zero sum) than about “growing” anything of value.[/quote]
define “inflated prices”.
price is only as high as the buyer will bear.
there’s no zero sum game here.[/quote]
When massive amounts of leverage are used by speculators to buy up assets they do not personally need, you get “artificially inflated prices.”
January 25, 2012 @ 11:48 AM
How about adding CEOs to the
How about adding CEOs to the list. (this is why I chose ‘other’)
January 25, 2012 @ 11:49 PM
Top professional baseball
Top professional baseball players? Was A-Rod really worth $400M?
I support the free market – so I guess I have to grin and bear it. But sometimes it is amazing what the market will pay for certain skills.
January 26, 2012 @ 9:04 AM
KSMountain wrote:Top
[quote=KSMountain]Top professional baseball players? Was A-Rod really worth $400M?
I support the free market – so I guess I have to grin and bear it. But sometimes it is amazing what the market will pay for certain skills.[/quote]
There are kids digging in mines and entire families surviving a month on less than the cost of a ticket for a preseason Chargers game. You can feed a kid for a month for the cost of a beer on the said game.
I’m happy to be on this side of the imbalance, but it always feels weird to hear people bragging about ‘working hard’ when the hard work means sitting in meetings for 6 hours/day or having three dinners in one night in upscale LV restaurants during some conference.
January 26, 2012 @ 3:22 PM
Thanks for clearing that up,
Thanks for clearing that up, CAR.
Somehow I was under the impression that the millions of people that go to work everyday building stuff, engineering stuff, fixing stuff, inventing stuff, cleaning stuff, protecting stuff, moving stuff to where it’s needed – and otherwise doing stuff – were actually creating value.
Now I know that they are all just taking from others, and it’s all “zero sum.”
January 27, 2012 @ 3:34 AM
pri_dk wrote:Thanks for
[quote=pri_dk]Thanks for clearing that up, CAR.
Somehow I was under the impression that the millions of people that go to work everyday building stuff, engineering stuff, fixing stuff, inventing stuff, cleaning stuff, protecting stuff, moving stuff to where it’s needed – and otherwise doing stuff – were actually creating value.
Now I know that they are all just taking from others, and it’s all “zero sum.”[/quote]
Lordy, Pri! Are you just trying to troll, or what?
It should be 100% clear by now that I strongly favor **workers’** rights, while opposing all the smoke-and-mirrors machinations on Wall Street.
The people who do the things in your list are totally deserving of what they get and more (IMHO). But they are not the ones making huge sums of money for buying and selling **existing** assets (ZERO SUM!).
The people who buy and sell existing assets — without any need for those assets — are the ones I’m talking about. People who “flip” houses; those who buy and sell gold, corn, oil, etc. without ever expecting to take delivery; those who buy and sell stocks for very short periods of time simply to take advantage of short-term moves (cap gains)…these are the people I’m talking about. (Yes, I’ve made a lot of money this way, too, but at least I can admit that it did NOTHING to benefit society.)
It’s one thing to have market makers to provide some additional liquidity — and the benefits of that can be debated — but we do not need the majority of our trades to be carried out by people who do not produce and have no intrinsic need for the assets they are trading. Add massive leverage and completely lopsided wealth accumulation to the mix, and it becomes even more damaging. This type of “investing” is sucking our country dry.
January 27, 2012 @ 9:08 AM
CA renter wrote:It should be
[quote=CA renter]It should be 100% clear by now that I strongly favor **workers’** rights, while opposing all the smoke-and-mirrors machinations on Wall Street.
[/quote]
No, that’s not clear at all. Statements like “The people who do the actual work should be rewarded at least as well as those who finance it.
” really sound a lot like “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!” which is Marx’s famous line
Let’s look back in time and Henry Ford. Ford, had a good idea, paying a decent wage. Your statement seems like you’re saying the workers should make as much as those evil people funding the company. BTW, the successful Ford company is actually, the third Ford company, the first two of which burned money like it reichmarks in the 1930s.
Simple questions? Should Ford, the founder make more than the guy putting the lug nut on? To me the answer is a simple yet.
Should Ford’s Partner, Malcomson, who brought all the money to make it Ford company V2.0 possible make as much as Ford? To me, again, the answer is yes.
Should the 12 investors, that Malcomson brought in through another to make Ford V3 make as much as Malcomson and Ford? Again the answer is yes.
It’s really no different than me buying a house and renting it to you.
That all said, the Financial sector you rail against represents 1.4% of the economy.
January 28, 2012 @ 2:14 AM
no_such_reality wrote:CA
[quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter]It should be 100% clear by now that I strongly favor **workers’** rights, while opposing all the smoke-and-mirrors machinations on Wall Street.
[/quote]
No, that’s not clear at all. Statements like “The people who do the actual work should be rewarded at least as well as those who finance it.
” really sound a lot like “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!” which is Marx’s famous line
Let’s look back in time and Henry Ford. Ford, had a good idea, paying a decent wage. Your statement seems like you’re saying the workers should make as much as those evil people funding the company. BTW, the successful Ford company is actually, the third Ford company, the first two of which burned money like it reichmarks in the 1930s.
Simple questions? Should Ford, the founder make more than the guy putting the lug nut on? To me the answer is a simple yet.
Should Ford’s Partner, Malcomson, who brought all the money to make it Ford company V2.0 possible make as much as Ford? To me, again, the answer is yes.
Should the 12 investors, that Malcomson brought in through another to make Ford V3 make as much as Malcomson and Ford? Again the answer is yes.
It’s really no different than me buying a house and renting it to you.
That all said, the Financial sector you rail against represents 1.4% of the economy.[/quote]
IMHO, in your example, Ford should make more than the line workers (of course! — but how much more?), but the investors should not.
Of course, this is entirely subjective. The only way we can really know what “the market” decides is if a reasonable balance of power exists between labor and capital. Without unions, it’s not possible, because unchecked capital always decides where capital goes (back to the investors/wealthy/powerful).
While you might disagree with Marx, there is no question that he was one of the most brilliant “philosophical economists” the world has ever known. He well understood the causes of our current financial crisis and tried to warn about the very situation we find ourselves in today.
—————-
“The financial industry was around 1.5% of GDP in the mid-19th century. The first large increase between 1880 to 1900 corresponds to the financing of railroads and early heavy industries.
The second big increase between 1918 and 1933 corresponds to the financing of the Electricity revolution, as well as automobile and pharmaceutical companies. GE did its IPO in 1913, GM in 1920 and Procter&Gamble in 1932. Key discoveries of the 1920s and 1930s, such as insulin and penicillin, became mass-manufactured and distributed.
After a continuous collapse in the 1930s and 40s, the GDP share of finance and insurance industries was down to only 2.5% of GDP in 1947. It recovered slowly and was mostly stable at around 4% until the late 1970s, and then grew quickly to reach 8.3% of GDP in 2006.”
http://sternfinance.blogspot.com/2008/10/future-of-financial-industry-thomas.html
———————
BTW, did you know that the mass production of penicillin was made possible by the U.S. govt? More of that “unproductive” govt spending at work…for the benefit of mankind.
“Large-scale commercial production of penicillin during the 1940s opened the era of antibiotics and is recognized as one of the great advances in civilization. The discovery of penicillin and the recognition of its therapeutic potential occurred in England, while discovering how to mass-produce the drug occurred in the US — at the Peoria lab [USDA].”
http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/docs.htm?docid=12764
January 27, 2012 @ 6:58 AM
CAR,
The 2011 GDP estimate
CAR,
The 2011 GDP estimate for the US is around $15 trillion dollars, most of which was private-sector production (i.e. capitalist businesses.)
Please explain to us how trillions of dollars in value are produced every year in this “zero sum” system?
January 28, 2012 @ 2:05 AM
pri_dk wrote:CAR,
The 2011
[quote=pri_dk]CAR,
The 2011 GDP estimate for the US is around $15 trillion dollars, most of which was private-sector production (i.e. capitalist businesses.)
Please explain to us how trillions of dollars in value are produced every year in this “zero sum” system?[/quote]
GDP numbers do not necessarily reflect “productivity” in an economy. If you buy a house for $100K and then sell that house for $200K, it looks like GDP “growth,” but no production has taken place.
Multiply the effects of asset trading during a credit expansion, and it looks like productivity is off the charts, when in reality, no/very little extra production is taking place. (Lots of details about the kind of production that is encouraged by this type of “investment,” but I’m trying to keep it simple here — think boom/bust cycles.)
As some point, if credit expansion stops and asset prices begin to decline, it can look like “productivity” is falling off a cliff, when in reality, productivity might be stagnant or falling only slightly. I believe one can make the case that productivity can actually be increasing when GDP is decreasing if the cause of the decline is a credit contraction affecting mostly asset prices. If the credit contraction primarily affects only speculative asset purchases, you can have an improving economy (for most American workers) when GDP numbers are declining.
There are two main types of “investing”: speculative purchases of existing assets, and investments that affect production capacity (which often include government investments/expenditures, BTW). The first type of “investing” is zero-sum, while the second type of investing leads to increased productivity.
You can have GDP growth without increased productivity, and it is almost always zero-sum. Unfortunately, this is the type of “investing” that has been encouraged lately, and I firmly believe it is one of the main reasons we are experiencing the weak economic conditions of late.
………
BTW, I have a question that has been nagging at me for years, and would love to hear from someone who is well-versed in the nuances of GDP statistics.
Government spending accounts for the “G” (government spending) in GDP calculations, but the money they pay to employees is usually spent right back into the economy as “C” (private consumption). How do they account for what would appear to be (nearly) double-counting of government spending in these two categories? Am I missing something?
January 28, 2012 @ 6:16 PM
CA renter wrote:
GDP numbers
[quote=CA renter]
GDP numbers do not necessarily reflect “productivity” in an economy. If you buy a house for $100K and then sell that house for $200K, it looks like GDP “growth,” but no production has taken place.
[/quote]
I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure new home sales go into the GDP calculation. But on resales I think only the commissions and other fees do. Not the entire sales price.
I’m not saying GDP is a perfect measurement. But including full sales price of resale homes would throw it way way off.
January 28, 2012 @ 9:19 PM
SK in CV wrote:CA renter
[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
GDP numbers do not necessarily reflect “productivity” in an economy. If you buy a house for $100K and then sell that house for $200K, it looks like GDP “growth,” but no production has taken place.
[/quote]
I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure new home sales go into the GDP calculation. But on resales I think only the commissions and other fees do. Not the entire sales price.
I’m not saying GDP is a perfect measurement. But including full sales price of resale homes would throw it way way off.[/quote]
Agreed, but where can we find out what they are including in the numbers? Are you sure that they aren’t including sales of existing assets like homes, agricultural commodities, etc.? What about (existing) stocks and bonds? Are they not included as “investments”? How do they differentiate between existing assets and new production? I’d hate to be the poor schlump who has to figure out these details.
January 29, 2012 @ 4:05 AM
Found it. They use rental
Found it. They use rental equivalence for people who’ve purchased existing homes. I guess that makes sense, especially since that’s how they calculate housing costs in the CPI calculations.
My mistake, they do not include the price paid for existing assets, only for the price paid for some of the services provided in those transactions. That makes much more sense.
“GDP is the market value of currently produced … There are a number of things we buy that are not the product of current production, and the value of these transactions is excluded from GDP. Missing from GDP calculations would be the value of the sales of existing homes or used cars, although the sales commissions are included because they represent payment for a currently provided service. Also excluded will be the value of antiques and classical works of art sold during the year. Similarly, when you buy stocks, bonds, or mutual funds, only the commissions / fees would be included in GDP because there is no production directly involved.”
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/newecn/Classes/Art/INT1/Mac/Measure/Out/Out.OM1b.html
……………
The prices of these assets are still affected by credit conditions and whether or not speculators are buying them when they are first produced (or if speculators are in the subsequent market, pushing prices higher for initial purchasers if they are responding to “false” demand signals down the line), so it would appear that credit conditions and asset price speculation can still affect GDP in a significant way, no?
In other words, let’s say credit is expanding rapidly, especially for asset purchases (i.e., mortgages for new houses), if prices are rising rapidly like they did during the bubble, wouldn’t that make it look like “productivity” were rising, even if productivity was declining (assuming the prices are rising fast enough to mask the lower production rates)?
Example: let’s say you build 100 houses and sell them for $100K each. GDP would show $10,000,000 in housing expenditures. Let’s say that the credit market continued to expand/speculation increased, and houses sell for $200K each. You could produce only 50 houses but still show $10,000,000 in housing expenditures. IOW, productivity could be declining (making 50 houses instead of 100), but the GDP numbers reflect a “stable” economy.
Thoughts, comments, corrections?
January 29, 2012 @ 8:00 AM
CA renter wrote:
Example:
[quote=CA renter]
Example: let’s say you build 100 houses and sell them for $100K each. GDP would show $10,000,000 in housing expenditures. Let’s say that the credit market continued to expand/speculation increased, and houses sell for $200K each. You could produce only 50 houses but still show $10,000,000 in housing expenditures. IOW, productivity could be declining (making 50 houses instead of 100), but the GDP numbers reflect a “stable” economy.
Thoughts, comments, corrections?[/quote]
GDP is adjusted for inflation. Imperfect, because inflation is inconsistent across markets, and measurement of inflation itself is imperfect. Neither of those measurements (GDP and inflation) are anything more than indicators. When they’re measured the same, quarter after quarter, they will provide an accurate trend line, despite their imperfections. And the methods used do get adjusted from time to time, in order to account for changes.
January 30, 2012 @ 5:17 AM
CA renter wrote:Thoughts,
[quote=CA renter]Thoughts, comments, corrections?[/quote]
Who cares?
Even if GDP numbers are off by a few trillion dollars, your claim that the $15 trillion dollar US economy is a “zero sum” game is simple-minded nonsense.
January 30, 2012 @ 12:58 PM
pri_dk wrote:CA renter
[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Thoughts, comments, corrections?[/quote]
Who cares?
Even if GDP numbers are off by a few trillion dollars, your claim that the $15 trillion dollar US economy is a “zero sum” game is simple-minded nonsense.[/quote]
You were the one who said “trillions of dollars…”, not I.
I’m saying that asset price speculation is almost always zero sum, and I stand by that 100%.
January 30, 2012 @ 2:47 PM
CA renter wrote:I’m saying
[quote=CA renter]I’m saying that asset price speculation is almost always zero sum, and I stand by that 100%.[/quote]
No, that’s not what you said:
[quote=CA renter]Someone, please tell me again how “the free market” and “capitalism” aren’t zero-sum in many/most cases.[/quote]
Are you really so clueless that you believe that our entire free market/capitalist economy is nothing more than “asset price speculation?”
January 30, 2012 @ 9:16 PM
pri_dk wrote:CA renter
[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]I’m saying that asset price speculation is almost always zero sum, and I stand by that 100%.[/quote]
No, that’s not what you said:
[quote=CA renter]Someone, please tell me again how “the free market” and “capitalism” aren’t zero-sum in many/most cases.[/quote]
Are you really so clueless that you believe that our entire free market/capitalist economy is nothing more than “asset price speculation?”[/quote]
“Clueless” is thinking that “the market” will take care of itself without causing tremendous damage to our economy and society. It’s never happened, and it never will.
Yes, asset price speculation is a very large part of our economy these days. It is not productive. Again, I stand by what I’ve said.
January 31, 2012 @ 9:34 PM
CA renter wrote:Yes, asset
[quote=CA renter]Yes, asset price speculation is a very large part of our economy these days. It is not productive. Again, I stand by what I’ve said.[/quote]
No, it’s 1.4% The number comes from the BEA. http://www.bea.gov/industry/xls/GDPbyInd_VA_NAICS_1998-2010.xls
All banking activites, including the Federal Reserve, Mortgage Loans, Credit Cards, personal loans (car loans) are 4%.
Asset speculations, is 1.4%.
January 31, 2012 @ 9:44 PM
Just curious as to how that
Just curious as to how that compares to public sector salaries+benies
January 31, 2012 @ 10:51 PM
sdr,
According to NSR’s
sdr,
According to NSR’s linked chart, compensation for those in the FIRE industry increased 81% from 1998 to 2010, while compensation for govt employees increased 67%. (Please check my numbers, as I just did a quick calculation.)
It’s also interesting to check out the “gross operating surplus” numbers in that chart. Looks like the FIRE industry is making a huge profit relative to the other more “productive” industries. Again, just a quick glance, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
January 31, 2012 @ 11:08 PM
dupe
dupe
February 1, 2012 @ 12:04 AM
The most overpaid person is
The most overpaid person is the one that likes their job and would do it for free even if they won the lottery. Everyone else is on a sliding scale from there.
I had that job, it never felt like work and I was so good at it. They had to make me take my vacation time and often times I lost it because I didn’t use it. But I’m getting older and my kids are entering college so I took a higher paying position/promotion and on Friday I get to start a special diet to see if I can avoid taking medication for my new found friend, hypertension. I have the same employer, work in the same industry, but my higher pay feels like a lower reward. 2008 Tg would tell tell 2012 Tg to stay put. I fall into one of those categories that you are voting on and I can honestly say that even within each category, it depends on what they actually do during their day.
When i was a “worker” and a “supervisor” I thought the executives had it so easy. They had all the trappings, the status, the pay, and all they did was go to meetings, sit behind a desk and act cool. I was wrong. Be careful of who you envy and who you demonize. I am not a wall street CEO, but I stopped hating them. They probably don’t sleep well either.
February 1, 2012 @ 7:05 AM
CA renter
[quote=CA renter]sdr,
According to NSR’s linked chart, compensation for those in the FIRE industry increased 81% from 1998 to 2010, while compensation for govt employees increased 67%. (Please check my numbers, as I just did a quick calculation.)
It’s also interesting to check out the “gross operating surplus” numbers in that chart. Looks like the FIRE industry is making a huge profit relative to the other more “productive” industries. Again, just a quick glance, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]
I see Government employee compensation increased 81% (LINE 87). I see their wages and salary increased 69.8% however fed gov emps increased 103%. Supplements to wages increased 120%. (line 275) and is 40% of wages. Fed increased 145%.
I’ll also note the FIRE compensation total is 40% that of Government and supplements is 25% of the Government total. Growth in FIRE supplements was 93%.
February 1, 2012 @ 7:34 AM
CA renter wrote:According to
[quote=CA renter]According to NSR’s linked chart, compensation for those in the FIRE industry increased 81% from 1998 to 2010, while compensation for govt employees increased 67%.[/quote]
How long do you pour over this data, ignoring the overwhelming evidence against your case, in hopes of finding the one detail that can support your inconsistent arguments?
And you are changing the subject yet again. First it was “our economy is zero sum.” Then it was “asset speculation provides no value” – (BTW, “asset speculation” is a job invented in your own mind. Nobody does “asset speculation” for a living.)
Now we are back to the evil “FIRE” industry – you know, that 2% of the economy that consists mainly of public-sector pension fund managers, life insurance companies that provide employee benefits, your local realtor who must frequently miss their kids’ baseball games in hopes of getting a paycheck this month, and a few miscellaneous rouges with names like Rich T.
In your deluded world, these folks are destroying our society and stripping the hard-working public employee masses from their well-deserved salaries (which somehow continue to be higher than everyone else who goes to work every day.)
And how are you so sure this is happening? Because of one obscure statistic that shows that maybe some of these “FIRE” folks are actually making a living.
It’s wonderful story for the paranoid, hysterical, and bitter. It just has no basis in fact or reality.
February 1, 2012 @ 12:05 AM
sdrealtor wrote:Just curious
[quote=sdrealtor]Just curious as to how that compares to public sector salaries+benies[/quote]
Is this what you’re referring to?
February 1, 2012 @ 1:25 PM
CA renter wrote:
I’m saying
[quote=CA renter]
I’m saying that asset price speculation is almost always zero sum, and I stand by that 100%.[/quote]
If it is always zero sum then by definition it cannot do any net harm to the economy.
January 30, 2012 @ 3:52 AM
Baseball players, Most
Baseball players, Most football players, all basketball players. After that, Actors, rock stars, and reality show “stars.”
February 1, 2012 @ 6:48 AM
Okay, CA, hypothetical for
Okay, CA, hypothetical for you.
Say I buy a house. I decide to rent it out. How much should I make?
It’s a very simple question.
Now, let’s say over the next nineteen years, I buy one more house each year so that I have twenty. Shouldn’t I make 20X the answer above?
20 more years later, I buy 40 more houses, shouldn’t I make 60x?
Or should I just stop buying houses and providing people places to live?
It’s that simple, if I don’t buy the houses, like the last few years, the construction industry falls off a cliff and the homes stop being built.
February 2, 2012 @ 12:32 AM
no_such_reality wrote:Okay,
[quote=no_such_reality]Okay, CA, hypothetical for you.
Say I buy a house. I decide to rent it out. How much should I make?
It’s a very simple question.
Now, let’s say over the next nineteen years, I buy one more house each year so that I have twenty. Shouldn’t I make 20X the answer above?
20 more years later, I buy 40 more houses, shouldn’t I make 60x?
Or should I just stop buying houses and providing people places to live?
It’s that simple, if I don’t buy the houses, like the last few years, the construction industry falls off a cliff and the homes stop being built.[/quote]
Let’s get one thing straight: landlords are not the ones providing places for people to live; home builders do that. You don’t “magic” a house out of thin air just because you’re a landlord. The houses already exist, but the investors create additional demand that affects prices, forcing more people to rent, even when they would prefer to buy.
I favor end-users/consumers over speculators and investors. No, you’re not “entitled” to any kind of profit if you don’t **produce** something for it. I want to see working families buy their own homes/assets (if they want to) without having to resort to using gimmicky mortgages and without having to compete with speculators/investors.
Let the people who want to live there buy those houses. Speculators drive up housing prices so that the regular working people who live in them cannot afford to buy them. It’s almost impossible to save up enough money for a down payment when you’re paying the kind of rent demanded (by the “investors”) in many cities.
February 1, 2012 @ 9:58 AM
Schadenfreude
Schadenfreude
February 1, 2012 @ 10:34 AM
Tg expresses a truth. This
Tg expresses a truth. This is one problem with wanting more.
Hypertension is bad. Perhaps it is related to striving.
I believe we should lead our children toward work that lowers bp.
My teen and I bit have same bp about 90/60.
My mom is very concerned that he strive for a high powered position.
I say, let it take its course. Go wherever you can flow.
Personally I think the ideal job for me would have been urban walking mailman.
For him, I recommend househusband to a wealthy girl. Or rock climbing bum.
He was telling me about some legendary old climber who traversed the country w the same mcdonalds cup for years getting refills to cut expenses.
Grossly overpaid hobo!
February 1, 2012 @ 10:35 AM
I have often wanted that job.
I have often wanted that job. Then I think back on the paper route I had as a kid sweating in the summer, and the fantasy looses it luster.
February 1, 2012 @ 10:43 AM
I love being outbin extreme
I love being outbin extreme temperatures. I like being sweat soaked and I like chilliness when woolcovered. It makes me feel alive. That’s why The most memorable bike rides are in completely fucked up conditions.
Epic!
February 1, 2012 @ 11:16 AM
walterwhite wrote:Or rock
[quote=walterwhite]Or rock climbing bum.
He was telling me about some legendary old climber who traversed the country w the same mcdonalds cup for years getting refills to cut expenses.
Grossly overpaid hobo![/quote]
My brother was a climbing bum for quite a while. Probably the happiest years of his life.
He lived in an unmarked campsite in Tuolumne Meadows one summer, climbing every day. Then when Tuolumne closed down he got a job as a maid (roomskeeper) at the Ahwahnee lodge – and climbed the big walls on his days off. His girlfriend at the time was also a climber – she had the better paying gig – waitress at Ahwahnee. (Good tips).
He would go to the cafeteria places in the valley and skarf up the food that others left behind on their trays.
Seriously – that was probably the happiest couple of years for him.
February 1, 2012 @ 11:22 AM
I think culturally it us
I think culturally it us important to act miserable at work so you get left alone wherever you are.
Which is ok as long as you just pretend.
February 1, 2012 @ 11:23 AM
Upwardly mobile for life
Upwardly mobile for life satisfaction scores
February 1, 2012 @ 10:42 AM
I agree with tg and scaredy.
I agree with tg and scaredy. In govm’t, I would rather be a represented “line worker” any day than an unrepresented manager, director, dept head and/or executive. In all levels of government, the latter works purely at the pleasure of their appointing authority. Their continued employment is often on a purely political basis and could quickly change with the wind or “change of the guard.” It may appear to the rank-and-file peons that these individuals “have it easy” but nothing could be further from the truth, ESP in the last decade!
Hypertension is insidious and creeps up on govm’t workers of all levels at surprisingly young ages. My experience was that most of the ones who waited the longest to retire had the worst health by the time they finally did so. Some died before retirement due to ailments likely caused and/or exacerbated by unrelenting stress. Life is too short to put up with this garbage ad infinitum, IMHO.
February 1, 2012 @ 1:16 PM
I lived in my car for a
I lived in my car for a summer Kayaking up and down the sierras before I got a real job. Lived in a tent for a few other summers. It was a good time, but definately not as good as having a family and community. Life didn’t feel in balance. Good for a season.
February 2, 2012 @ 1:10 PM
The ignorance of that is
The ignorance of that is almost astounding. There is no polite way to say it. I suggest you go see the places in the US where investors don’t invest. I’ve lived in them and know the dystopia your little workers paradise fantasy produces. You don’t even need to leave the states. Detroit has thousands of SFRs below $10k. Rural America is covered in neglect.
February 3, 2012 @ 3:47 AM
no_such_reality wrote:The
[quote=no_such_reality]The ignorance of that is almost astounding. There is no polite way to say it. I suggest you go see the places in the US where investors don’t invest. I’ve lived in them and know the dystopia your little workers paradise fantasy produces. You don’t even need to leave the states. Detroit has thousands of SFRs below $10k. Rural America is covered in neglect.[/quote]
That has nothing to do with landlords and their “investments.” The reason Detroit is having such a difficult time is because of our tax and trade laws — favoring corporations and their “investors” over workers.
Let’s not forget stupid decisions on the part of management, especially in the auto industry — like “planned obsolescence,” especially at a time when your foreign competitors are advertising the greater durability of their vehicles.
February 3, 2012 @ 4:42 AM
CA renter wrote:That has
[quote=CA renter]That has nothing to do with landlords and their “investments.” The reason Detroit is having such a difficult time is because of our tax and trade laws — favoring corporations and their “investors” over workers.[/quote]
Another fairytale.
Please prove me wrong by cutting and pasting several out-of-context paragraphs from some irrelevant articles. Your post must fill at least half the page. (Don’t forget to highlight in bold a few sentences that almost sorta sound like they might support your argument.)
Better yet, let’s hear you explanation for the economic history of the Soviet Union, Cuba, or North Korea. That should provide some comedy. (Or are you still pretending these countries do not or never did exist?)
February 3, 2012 @ 9:57 PM
pri_dk wrote:CA renter
[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]That has nothing to do with landlords and their “investments.” The reason Detroit is having such a difficult time is because of our tax and trade laws — favoring corporations and their “investors” over workers.[/quote]
Another fairytale.
Please prove me wrong by cutting and pasting several out-of-context paragraphs from some irrelevant articles. Your post must fill at least half the page. (Don’t forget to highlight in bold a few sentences that almost sorta sound like they might support your argument.)
Better yet, let’s hear you explanation for the economic history of the Soviet Union, Cuba, or North Korea. That should provide some comedy. (Or are you still pretending these countries do not or never did exist?)[/quote]
Right, trade embargoes, economic sanctions, wars against these countries, lopsided treaties and trade agreements, etc. had nothing at all to do with the economic health of those countries. It was that “evil socialism” that did it. (BTW, I don’t like communism any more than I like unchecked, Darwinian capitalism; they both lend themselves to massive corruption which is what causes the downfall of nations.)
Why not look at “socialized” countries that don’t have these unfair, US-imposed conditions and restrictions, instead? Oh, that’s right…you’d be proven wrong, once again.
See for yourself. Here, you can look up various measures of well-being. Check out crime statistics, literacy, health, economic stats, etc.
http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php
But hey, don’t let facts or logic get in your way. Just keep on regurgitating the rhetoric you’ve been brainwashed to believe all your life.
February 3, 2012 @ 10:38 PM
I love sites that compare
I love sites that compare life in the us to Luxembourg and slovenia
February 3, 2012 @ 10:56 PM
Apparently, you didn’t see
Apparently, you didn’t see all the other countries listed there?
February 4, 2012 @ 6:28 AM
Well, I’ve lived in Detroit
Well, I’ve lived in Detroit and worked for the auto industry While management may have made plenty of blunders, trust me, the workers are a giant part of the problem.
I’ve literally heard workers joking about how they intentionally f’d up a car coming down the line that’ll drive the owner nuts trying to get it fixed.
I’ve seen workers playing cards at picnic tables while automated machines do the work they used to do.
I’ve seen dozens of workers standing around idled for 20 minutes waiting for a another union member to show up and push the reset button on the line even though they all knew he would just show up and push the reset button. They couldn’t because of union rules.
I’ve seen the damage as the vandalize people’s cars, never mind it’s some poor new hires 7 year old car from college.
I worked with them, they don’t care about anyone as long as they get ‘their’s’.
Did I mention the sense of entitlement?
Honestly, I’m surprised it took GM as long as it did to go bankrupt.
But back to your main premise. Asset speculation is evil. I’m assuming from your rants, that commodity speculators are the bottom of the barrel. House flippers only marginally better.
My question, where does the modern american grocery store fit? They are nothing but asset speculators. They don’t intend to use the product. Heck, they don’t even take possesion. They don’t produce. The bakery, if they have one, is the only part the produces something. The rest, just buy an asset, and attempt to charge you more for it and literally waste large amounts of it. They don’t even do distribution. For many products, they don’t stock the shelves. La Brea bread in the store, La Brea Bakery does all the distribution and stocking. Fresh veggies, fruits, often the producer needs to do the shipping. At best the store puts it on the counter.
February 4, 2012 @ 11:21 AM
CA renter wrote:Right, trade
[quote=CA renter]Right, trade embargoes, economic sanctions, wars against these countries, […][/quote]
We never fought a war against the Soviet Union or Cuba. There hasn’t been any fighting with North Korea for 60 years.
We fought an even bigger and more recent war with Vietnam, and their economy is booming now. Why?
Trade embargos and economic sanctions? If their systems are so wonderful, then why do they need trade with the evil capitalist world? Why did their economies completely FAIL without goods from the capitalist world?
Your ignorance of history is off the charts, but I’m curious just how far into stupid you can go…
[quote=CA renter]Why not look at “socialized” countries that don’t have these unfair, US-imposed conditions and restrictions, instead? Oh, that’s right…you’d be proven wrong, once again.[/quote]
“Socialized” countries? Making up more words again? I suppose you can do that when you live in your own little world…
As for your list, there’s nothing on it. But I’ll give you an opportunity to prove how smart you are. Name one country without financial markets that has even a fraction of the standard of living the US has.
Name ONE.
February 4, 2012 @ 3:22 PM
Pri_dk,
Until you learn to
Pri_dk,
Until you learn to debate in a civil and respectful way, I’m done with responding to your posts.
You’ve complained about my “long” posts (God forbid we actually cite facts and statistics), but failed to introduce any facts or logic to substantiate your positions. At least I can READ and cite sources. You’re arguments invariably consist of “you’re stupid and your mom smells like a monkey’s butt.”
Next time you want to know what “stupid and ignorant” looks like, take a look in the mirror.
Try READING for a change…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
February 4, 2012 @ 4:49 PM
CA renter wrote:Pri_dk,
Until
[quote=CA renter]Pri_dk,
Until you learn to debate in a civil and respectful way, I’m done with responding to your posts.
[response to my post, including directly calling me (not my arguments) “stupid and ignorant”][/quote]
Thank you for setting the example of civility.
And now that I’ve learned to be civil, I’d like to thank you for your links with “facts and statistics.”
I especially appreciate your “Cold War” link.
Because you are correct – I’d never heard of the Cold War. Even though I was an officer in the US Army in the 1980s; even though I had extensive training in Soviet military doctrine and the history of the Korean, Vietnam and Soviet-Afghan wars; even though I worked and trained with men who had fought in Vietnam, patrolled the Korean DMZ, and operated nuclear missile systems in Germany; and even though I spent many hours training in a gas mask and chemical warfare suit (because the Soviet doctrine was to use chemical weapons first); and even though I personally remember civil defense drills in elementary school, I somehow never had heard of the Cold War until you came along and enlightened me.
And now that I’ve been introduced to the Cold War, I do have a question. Since you’ve done so much READING, I know you can answer:
Why did one economy prevail and the other collapse? After all, both sides were “fighting” – trying to “hurt” each other. Why did one fail and the other emerge as the strongest economy on earth?
In other words, are you actually trying to claim communism is a better system – in the year 2012?
(BTW, you still haven’t named one country in response to my previous post…that is, if we are still talking to each other…)
February 4, 2012 @ 6:00 PM
What I think is pretty funny
What I think is pretty funny is that if you look at the numbers, a good percentage of sales in the recent recovery has been due to investor activity.
Aso given some of the incentives that the administration is providing such as bulk sales and things like that, there is a general recognition that investors provide much needed liquidity into the market.
However it is useless to argue that point with someone who has no recognition of that sort of value.
February 4, 2012 @ 6:43 PM
SD Realtor wrote:What I think
[quote=SD Realtor]What I think is pretty funny is that if you look at the numbers, a good percentage of sales in the recent recovery has been due to investor activity.
Aso given some of the incentives that the administration is providing such as bulk sales and things like that, there is a general recognition that investors provide much needed liquidity into the market.
However it is useless to argue that point with someone who has no recognition of that sort of value.[/quote]
They “invest” at the expense of future buyers. High housing prices do not create the environment for a true economic rebound. I would argue that high housing prices reduce the amount (without a debt offset) that families can spend in more productive ways.
There are plenty of end-users who would love to buy their own homes, but cannot afford to do so because of all the investor activity.
Imagine how much better our economy would be if the end users were able to get the same deals that bulk investors do.
BTW, the fact that the govt is getting into these deals with investors is not a sign that they “value” these investors…it is an indication of the massive corruption that exists in our society.
February 4, 2012 @ 9:01 PM
Cut out the middleman, and we
Cut out the middleman, and we will all be alone on the end.
Middleman would have been a nice name for my second kid but we didn’t know at the tine we would gave three
February 5, 2012 @ 3:14 PM
pri_dk wrote:I spent many
[quote=pri_dk]I spent many hours training in a gas mask and chemical warfare suit (because the Soviet doctrine was to use chemical weapons first)[/quote]
Pri: Remember those exercises with the MOPP suits? Dude, those were nasty. Do you recall that a Soviet chem attack would have struck before we had a chance to even get into the suits? That was particularly funny and not in a “ha, ha” way.
I was in an Armored Cav unit in the Fulda in the early 1980s and we were constantly doing those stupid NBC exercises. Thank God the balloon never went up, or we’d be having a completely different discussion about the Soviet Union and the Communist “way of life” (still alive and well in North Korea, Cuba and China).
February 5, 2012 @ 3:34 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Pri: Remember those exercises with the MOPP suits? Dude, those were nasty. Do you recall that a Soviet chem attack would have struck before we had a chance to even get into the suits? That was particularly funny and not in a “ha, ha” way.[/quote]
The MOPP suits did provide a layer of warmth in the winter though. I always felt that was probably all they were really good for.
February 5, 2012 @ 7:43 AM
So CA renter, CalPers is one
So CA renter, CalPers is one of the largest investors.
They ironically, own and have lost bundles in real estate.
Are you saying CalPers is victimizing people in order to provide the government worker pensions?
If CalPers doesn’t invest, then who is going lose that value so that the government workers can have their pension?
Alternately, my neighbors are in their 70s. Their house is worth north of $500,000, if not $700K. They bought it, 40 years ago, for price of a modern honda accord. Are they exploiting future buyers by reaping that gain?
February 5, 2012 @ 9:06 AM
I forgot that some people
I forgot that some people feel that owning a home is an entitlement.
So I guess you are saying people should not be allowed to buy real estate as an investment then?
So why doesn’t that apply to equities as well? Or cars? Or anything for that matter?
February 5, 2012 @ 2:19 PM
Should at least be a level
Should at least be a level playing field investors v. Working stiffs
February 5, 2012 @ 2:51 PM
SD Realtor wrote:I forgot
[quote=SD Realtor]I forgot that some people feel that owning a home is an entitlement.
So I guess you are saying people should not be allowed to buy real estate as an investment then?
So why doesn’t that apply to equities as well? Or cars? Or anything for that matter?[/quote]
Because we have to decide as a society if we want to encourage work vs. gambling. Yes, I feel that a family’s right to own their own home trumps the “rights” of investors to make a profit.
Houses are different because they are a basic necessity (I feel the same way about agricultural commodities, etc., as well). I don’t have as stong of an opinion WRT stocks and other “paper” assets — the purpose of those assets is to enable speculation/investment. Homes are built to provide shelter for people, they should not be used for speculative “investments.”
February 5, 2012 @ 4:01 PM
CA renter wrote: Homes are
[quote=CA renter] Homes are built to provide shelter for people, they should not be used for speculative “investments.”[/quote]
And how should we prevent investors from purchasing homes and renting them to others – a law forbidding ownership of rental properties?
Funny, there was a post from BG a while back describing the “typical” retired teacher as owning and managing couple of rental properties, just to make ends meet.
February 5, 2012 @ 4:41 PM
The casino won’t be closed
The casino won’t be closed until enough people lose there asses.
However;
* The financial model of growth in the developed world has run its course and financial assets will be significantly reduced in value over the next few years.
* Systematic intermittent deleveraging will lead to persistently high unemployment and widespread poverty.
* Societal institutions or systems that rely on financial stability will continue to deteriorate at an accelerating pace (education, healthcare, etc.).
* States running large fiscal deficits to support their private economies will quickly slide into insolvency and default on ambitious promises to their citizens.
* Housing, food and energy will become unaffordable for millions of people as wealth in the form of revenues, investments and savings is rapidly destroyed, and short-term speculative plays in the commodity space fueled by central bank liquidity will only make this dynamic worse.
And finally,
* Political institutions or systems that have exercised power during the unprecedented financial boom will come under an equally unprecedented societal pressure and will most likely be overhauled or completely dismantled
February 5, 2012 @ 7:44 PM
Arraya wrote:The casino won’t
[quote=Arraya]The casino won’t be closed until enough people lose there asses.
However;
* The financial model of growth in the developed world has run its course and financial assets will be significantly reduced in value over the next few years.
* Systematic intermittent deleveraging will lead to persistently high unemployment and widespread poverty.
* Societal institutions or systems that rely on financial stability will continue to deteriorate at an accelerating pace (education, healthcare, etc.).
* States running large fiscal deficits to support their private economies will quickly slide into insolvency and default on ambitious promises to their citizens.
* Housing, food and energy will become unaffordable for millions of people as wealth in the form of revenues, investments and savings is rapidly destroyed, and short-term speculative plays in the commodity space fueled by central bank liquidity will only make this dynamic worse.
And finally,
* Political institutions or systems that have exercised power during the unprecedented financial boom will come under an equally unprecedented societal pressure and will most likely be overhauled or completely dismantled[/quote]
So, Arraya, what should one do to plan for retirement or IN retirement?? I think, if one knows RE local best (over stock market investments), they should plan to buy SFR rental investments for ONE YEAR LEASES!! Anything less, investing in duplex, triplex, apt bldgs, etc is asking for trouble. To be frank, a prospective apt renter could very well have several “family members” they want or need to “put up” after each family member has sustained some sort of “loss.” These people feel a need to provide shelter for their (disenfranchised, lol) family members in whatever way they can, even if the unit they rented is “insufficent” for the job.
In recent months, I have increasingly felt that investing in “distressed” (SFR) RE is the KEY to investing for maximum income for retirement (for income purposes).
I respect your opinion on this matter. What do YOU think??
PS: I know my local RE opportunities like the back on my hand … lol.
February 5, 2012 @ 8:14 PM
W/ tax incentives, homeowners
W/ tax incentives, homeowners could easily be given a big advantage over investors. Doesn’t seem like bad tax policy.
That was kind of the purpose behind deducting interest wasn’t it? To incentivize homeownership?
February 5, 2012 @ 11:03 PM
walterwhite wrote:W/ tax
[quote=walterwhite]W/ tax incentives, homeowners could easily be given a big advantage over investors. Doesn’t seem like bad tax policy.
That was kind of the purpose behind deducting interest wasn’t it? To incentivize homeownership?[/quote]
Exactly. That, and only providing govt-backed loans for the purchase of a single, owner-occupied, primary residence.
One more…all RE inventory owned or controlled by the govt should be offered to owner-occupiers before being offered to any investors. The govt would incur far fewer losses, too!
February 6, 2012 @ 12:37 AM
BG – since the specter of
BG – since the specter of serious deflation, possibly abrupt and hard, hangs over our financial heads at all time – the only thing you should hope for is return of capital rather than return on capital.
February 6, 2012 @ 6:50 AM
There already are substantial
There already are substantial tax incentives favoring homeowners over investors. Investors can only deduct mortgage interest because it is a business expense. (All businesses can deduct all types of interest – it has nothing to do with incentives.) Also, only individuals can borrow through government lending programs, not corporations. Government policy already favors the owner/occupier, big time.
And don’t for get that “rewarding” people who buy homes indirectly punishes the poor – those who typically rent – because these polices shift tax dollars from other programs to people who are probably doing OK already (homeowners.)
But let’s ignore common sense, because our most important goal is to get revenge on the “asset price speculators.”
(Actually the goal is to make housing more affordable so that one person here can live somewhere nicer, but let’s focus on the “asset price speculation” bogeyman anyway…)
We have to end all real-estate investing!
We’ll start by introducing a bill into Congress.
Let’s call it the Screw Renters (the poor) by Massively Reducing the Supply of Basic Shelter and Sending Rental Rates Through the Roof Act.
I yield the floor to the Senator from San Diego…
February 6, 2012 @ 11:00 AM
pri_dk wrote:There already
[quote=pri_dk]There already are substantial tax incentives favoring homeowners over investors. Investors can only deduct mortgage interest because it is a business expense. (All businesses can deduct all types of interest – it has nothing to do with incentives.) Also, only individuals can borrow through government lending programs, not corporations. Government policy already favors the owner/occupier, big time.
And don’t for get that “rewarding” people who buy homes indirectly punishes the poor – those who typically rent – because these polices shift tax dollars from other programs to people who are probably doing OK already (homeowners.)
But let’s ignore common sense, because our most important goal is to get revenge on the “asset price speculators.”
(Actually the goal is to make housing more affordable so that one person here can live somewhere nicer, but let’s focus on the “asset price speculation” bogeyman anyway…)
We have to end all real-estate investing!
We’ll start by introducing a bill into Congress.
Let’s call it the Screw Renters (the poor) by Massively Reducing the Supply of Basic Shelter and Sending Rental Rates Through the Roof Act.
I yield the floor to the Senator from San Diego…[/quote]
Hogwash. What “substantial tax incentives” favor homeowners over investors? Investors get to deduct interest and property tax expenses, and ONLY “investors” are allowed to deduct repair and maintenance costs, etc. Investors get Prop 13 protection, which is rarely shared with renters (most investors will charge market rates, they won’t usually discount the rent because they’re paying lower property taxes than their neighbors unless they have superior, long-term renters who help reduce their turnover and vacancy expenses, in return). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans are available to investors, and FHA loans are available to investors who don’t already have another FHA loan on another property. Whether the investors are “indivduals” or “corporations” doesn’t matter one bit — we’re talking about investors vs. owner-occupiers, not corporate structures.
It’s funny how you perceive the world. Not everyone is as selfish as you. Some of us can distinguish between what’s good for ourselves, and what’s good for society. Some of us are willing to make personal sacrifices so that others can benefit. For us, we alreay live in a very nice house, and paid cash for it — thanks to “asset price speculation.” This isn’t about what will benefit us, personally; it’s about what I think is fair for others.
February 6, 2012 @ 11:34 AM
CA renter wrote:It’s funny
[quote=CA renter]It’s funny how you perceive the world. Not everyone is as selfish as you. Some of us can distinguish between what’s good for ourselves, and what’s good for society. Some of us are willing to make personal sacrifices so that others can benefit. For us, we alreay live in a very nice house, and paid cash for it — thanks to “asset price speculation.” This isn’t about what will benefit us, personally; it’s about what I think is fair for others.[/quote]
You really raised the bar for self-contradiction and hypocrisy with that one.
Enjoying the gains you made through investments – but now you are experiencing pangs of conscience, and don’t want anybody else to have those same rewards?
“I got mine, now let’s change the rules. After all, they are unfair.”
In your own words:
[quote]Asset price speculators are no different from ticket scalpers. Perhaps you think they add to the economy; I think they’re the biggest parasites on the planet.[/quote]
BTW, know anybody who’s selling tickets to tonight’s Lakers game?
Some of your fellow ‘parasites’ perhaps?
February 6, 2012 @ 12:19 PM
No, I want to pay higher
No, I want to pay higher taxes on our dividends and LT gains. I think these tax rates are “unfair” because I know what it’s like to work for a living vs. invest for a living. I’ve done both, and there is no doubt in my mind that working for a living is much more difficult, and much more valuable to society.
There is no reason for investors to be paying lower taxes than those who work for a living. As a matter of fact, I think investors — especially “asset price speculators” (including myself!) — should pay higher rates than workers.
February 6, 2012 @ 12:31 PM
Does seem like a pretty big
Does seem like a pretty big advantage to let investors deduct all the maintenance.
February 6, 2012 @ 1:22 PM
walterwhite wrote:Does seem
[quote=walterwhite]Does seem like a pretty big advantage to let investors deduct all the maintenance.[/quote]
Homeowners can deduct maintenance from their basis when they realize the gain – if they are subject to capital gains taxes at all, and most aren’t because of the exemptions for the sale of a home (another huge tax advantage for homeowners, BTW..)
Basically investment properties are taxed like any other business – you claim your income and deduct your expenses, which includes depreciation.
February 6, 2012 @ 1:22 PM
pri_dk wrote:walterwhite
[quote=pri_dk][quote=walterwhite]Does seem like a pretty big advantage to let investors deduct all the maintenance.[/quote]
Homeowners can deduct maintenance from their basis when they realize the gain – if they are subject to capital gains taxes at all, and most aren’t because of the exemptions for the same of a home (another huge tax advantage for homeowners, BTW..)
Basically investment properties are taxed like any other business – you claim your income and deduct your expenses, which includes depreciation.[/quote]
Owner-occupiers cannot add regular maintenance costs to their cost basis. Only “improvements” like additions, new HVAC systems, etc. that add value to their homes can be added, AFAIK. If a tax specialist here knows the exact details, please feel free to chime in!
Not only that, but owner-occupiers cannot deduct these expenses/add to cost basis unless they sell, whereas landlords can do so without selling.
Exactly what “special” tax incentives are you talking about that favor owner-occupiers? I don’t know of any except the relatively new (1997) $250K/$500K cap gains exemption, which I also disagree with — though they could allow sellers to add inflation to their cost basis so they’re not paying taxes on inflation alone, but that opens up a whole new can of worms. There is also the Homeowner’s Exemption for property taxes in certain counties (not sure of the differences between the counties and states), but that’s a pretty paltry benefit.
It’s pretty clear to me that investors are definitely on the winning side of the “homeownership” deal.
February 6, 2012 @ 1:38 PM
CAR,
Mortgage interest
CAR,
Mortgage interest deduction and cap gains exemption are the biggies, and they are big.
You are right that “maintenance” is not deductible – only “improvements” for homeowners.
But these details are irrelevant because investment homes are taxed like every other business activity. In other words, there is nothing unique about the business of renting homes (and the vast majority of rental homes are small businesses done on the side by ordinary people with jobs.)
The real nonsense in your claims is that these cost “advantages” that investors enjoy are not passed on to renters. Really?
Since when can landlords demand whatever they want for rent?
Since when is it forbidden for a renter to shop around or move to a less-expensive property?
The landlord that does not “pass on the savings” by lowering their price doesn’t get the tenant. Because the tenant will go to the landlord who does. It’s that simple (BTW this is called “Econ 101,” you should look into it sometime…)
The rental market is one of the least constrained markets that there is. The laws that often are in place, like rent control and eviction laws, generally favor tenants over the landlord.
It’s just not a problem. You need to find a better scapegoat.
February 6, 2012 @ 2:48 PM
pri_dk wrote:The real
[quote=pri_dk]The real nonsense in your claims is that these cost “advantages” that investors enjoy are not passed on to renters. Really?
Since when can landlords demand whatever they want for rent?
Since when is it forbidden for a renter to shop around or move to a less-expensive property?
The landlord that does not “pass on the savings” by lowering their price doesn’t get the tenant. Because the tenant will go to the landlord who does. It’s that simple (BTW this is called “Econ 101,” you should look into it sometime…)
The rental market is one of the least constrained markets that there is. The laws that often are in place, like rent control and eviction laws, generally favor tenants over the landlord.
It’s just not a problem. You need to find a better scapegoat.[/quote]
Yes, really. Most landlords will charge market rent; they do not give discounts to renters out of the kindness of their hearts, no matter what their costs are. Landlords are in it for profit, and California taxpayers are subsidizing their profits via Prop 13 protections. Since you are such a staunch taxpayer advocate, why do we not hear you ranting about this?
In a high-demand market, rental supply (all housing) is indeed constrained.
Try taking that Econ 101 course yourself, you certainly need it.
BTW, in all the years I’ve been on blogs/message boards (over a decade), I’ve never once initiated a personal attack. OTOH, if someone starts with me, I’ll be patient initially; but if they continue, I’ll give it right back. You’ve more than asked for it.
edit: I’ve never said, “you don’t deserve to live here if you weren’t born here.” I’ve said that you ought to practice what you constantly preach. You always claim that people have choices if they don’t like something in this “free-market” Utopia of yours…so if you don’t like the tax rates in California, make another choice and move to another state with a lower tax burden. Don’t move to one of the most liberal states in the nation and then complain about how we run things. We don’t have to change things just to please you (or anyone else who chooses to move here). It’s a bit like the idiots who move next to an airport, and then lobby to have the airport closed or restrict air traffic because they don’t like the noise.
February 6, 2012 @ 3:49 PM
CA renter wrote:Don’t move to
[quote=CA renter]Don’t move to one of the most liberal states in the nation and then complain about how we run things. We don’t have to change things just to please you (or anyone else who chooses to move here).[/quote]
Gee, I guess I’ve been doing it wrong for a long time.
I moved here more than twenty years ago, after serving in the US Army.
During all those years, I’d been voting in California elections. I didn’t realize I wasn’t supposed to have opinions or participate in the political process.
I actually believed that a US Citizen can live in any state. I actually thought that my military service was something I did to ensure that right (and your right, too.)
I actually believed that the state taxes I paid gave me some right to a say in how they are spent.
I never realized that “we” does not include “me.” (I guess it doesn’t include a lot of Piggs either.)
Now I know that the “we” who “run things” only means “you” and other people where were born here (how did Arnold ever become Governor?)
[quote]It’s a bit like the idiots who move next to an airport, and then lobby to have the airport closed or restrict air traffic because they don’t like the noise.[/quote]
Yes, anyone that doesn’t accept the status quo is truly an “idiot.”
February 6, 2012 @ 3:58 PM
pri_dk wrote:CA renter
[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Don’t move to one of the most liberal states in the nation and then complain about how we run things. We don’t have to change things just to please you (or anyone else who chooses to move here).[/quote]
Gee, I guess I’ve been doing it wrong for a long time.
I moved here more than twenty years ago, after serving in the US Army.
During all those years, I’d been voting in California elections. I didn’t realize I wasn’t supposed to have opinions or participate in the political process.
I actually believed that a US Citizen can live in any state. I actually thought that my military service was something I did to ensure that right (and your right, too.)
I actually believed that the state taxes I paid gave me some right to a say in how they are spent.
I never realized that “we” does not include “me.” (I guess it doesn’t include a lot of Piggs either.)
Now I know that the “we” who “run things” only means “you” and other people where were born here (how did Arnold ever become Governor?)
[quote]It’s a bit like the idiots who move next to an airport, and then lobby to have the airport closed or restrict air traffic because they don’t like the noise.[/quote]
Yes, anyone that doesn’t accept the status quo is truly an “idiot.”[/quote]
Pri: I’ve been watching the back-and-forth with CAR, and this one really got me, especially being California born and bred.
CAR: This state is in the midst of committing financial suicide and that’s the response? Are you being serious? Like pri, I also served and I also find those comments appalling. You don’t speak for me, and I have as much right to be here in California as anyone else REGARDLESS OF MY POLITICAL BELIEFS. Who are you to tell me what to believe, or how to act, or when to keep my mouth shut? What an unbelievably patronizing, autocratic and somewhat fascist remark. Last time I checked, California was still part of America (although apparently just barely).
February 6, 2012 @ 4:28 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: I’ve been watching the back-and-forth with CAR, and this one really got me, especially being California born and bred.
CAR: This state is in the midst of committing financial suicide and that’s the response? Are you being serious? Like pri, I also served and I also find those comments appalling. You don’t speak for me, and I have as much right to be here in California as anyone else REGARDLESS OF MY POLITICAL BELIEFS. Who are you to tell me what to believe, or how to act, or when to keep my mouth shut? What an unbelievably patronizing, autocratic and somewhat fascist remark. Last time I checked, California was still part of America (although apparently just barely).[/quote]
You’ve missed a lot of the back-and-forth between Pri and myself, Allan.
[edit: My comment was in response to his post…which was a response to another comment I had made some time ago in a totally different thread.]
This has nothing to do with your political beliefs, military service, how you should act, or what you should say. Don’t come into the middle of a situation you’re not familiar with and then start firing off like that.
Pri is forever telling us that we have a “choice” when we buy things in the private market. I’ve been saying that it’s not nearly as neat and tidy as that. He’s complained about the taxes in California, and I told him that his beliefs about “choice” in the “free market” would lead him to move somewhere else where the tax burden is lower. That “choice” thing isn’t always as easy as some would make it sound.
As much as you have a right to live somewhere, so do the rest of us. We ALL have a say in how things are run. The fact that you’ve served in the military does not give you any greater rights than the rest of us outside of the income, benefits, and pensions you may have earned as a result of your service (and you deserve it!). Whether you were fighting for our “freedom” or for the benefit of corporations and moneyed interests is another discussion, though.
If I don’t like how a city, state, or country runs things, the last thing I’m going to do is move there, start complaining about it, and then expect them to change things just to suit me.
February 6, 2012 @ 4:43 PM
CA renter wrote:If I don’t
[quote=CA renter]If I don’t like how a city, state, or country runs things, the last thing I’m going to do is move there, start complaining about it, and then expect them to change things just to suit me.[/quote]
“Them?”
Wow…you still don’t get it.
Here’s some news for ya: I do like most of how California runs things (and I like most Californians.)
But what you are still saying is that YOU have the right to take issue with things you don’t like because you were born here, and apparently I have to accept everything that ever happens in California without question.
So how long do have to live and pay taxes here before I get to have an opinion? When do “I” get to be part of “we?”
Allan is spot on, and your awkward “love it or leave it” argument is, in fact “patronizing, autocratic and somewhat fascist.”
Birthright is bigotry.
(BTW, Wall Street is in New York.)
February 6, 2012 @ 10:44 PM
pri_dk wrote:CA renter
[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]If I don’t like how a city, state, or country runs things, the last thing I’m going to do is move there, start complaining about it, and then expect them to change things just to suit me.[/quote]
“Them?”
Wow…you still don’t get it.
Here’s some news for ya: I do like most of how California runs things (and I like most Californians.)
But what you are still saying is that YOU have the right to take issue with things you don’t like because you were born here, and apparently I have to accept everything that ever happens in California without question.
So how long do have to live and pay taxes here before I get to have an opinion? When do “I” get to be part of “we?”
Allan is spot on, and your awkward “love it or leave it” argument is, in fact “patronizing, autocratic and somewhat fascist.”
Birthright is bigotry.
(BTW, Wall Street is in New York.)[/quote]
No, if I were as frustrated as you are about the way California is run, I would move. That’s what I’m saying. You have an even easier position WRT opting out of living here. Native Californians and those who were moved here as minor children (those who had no choice in moving here) have familial obligations, well-established social and cultural networks, etc. that they would have to give up in order to “opt-out” of California. They did not get to choose where to live. For someone who **chose** to move here as an adult, your choice to opt-out is much easier to make — you never had to “buy it”/move here in the first place. You do not have the same roots and obligations that those of us who’ve lived here all our lives do, so your ability to avoid the frustration with our tax system (and anything else you don’t like about CA) is far easier.
The issue being debated in the other thread was whether or not you had a **choice** to pay the “overly-burdensome” (according to you) taxes in California. You claimed that you didn’t have a choice. I corrected you by explaining that you had the same choice that those in the “private market” do — you can easily “opt-out” of buying what you do not want. California has a long history of being a “liberal” state with generally higher taxes. When you **chose** to move here, you made the **choice** to pay the price for a particular thing (living in California).
Stop claiming that you don’t have a choice. You have the same choice that consumers do when you tell them they can “avoid buying” something if they don’t like how a company is run, etc. You are the one who keeps talking about how great the “free market” is because consumers get to put pressure on companies by “choosing” whether or not to buy a particular product. Just follow your own advice if you think it’s so great.
BTW, when did I ever claim that Wall Street was anywhere else but NY?????????
February 6, 2012 @ 11:00 PM
CA renter wrote:Native
[quote=CA renter]Native Californians and those who were moved here as minor children (those who had no choice in moving here) have familial obligations, well-established social and cultural networks, etc. that they would have to give up in order to “opt-out” of California
[/quote]
It hasn’t occurred to you that those that come here have already had to give all that you mention up to come here?
There is no going back.
February 6, 2012 @ 11:13 PM
no_such_reality wrote:CA
[quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter]Native Californians and those who were moved here as minor children (those who had no choice in moving here) have familial obligations, well-established social and cultural networks, etc. that they would have to give up in order to “opt-out” of California
[/quote]
It hasn’t occurred to you that those that come here have already had to give all that you mention up to come here?
There is no going back.[/quote]
I disagree, NSR. Nobody HAS to move to CA as an adult. They make a CHOICE to do it. And you can ALWAYS go back to where you came from . . . that is, unless you are from a very small rural community and burned all your bridges there :={
February 6, 2012 @ 11:34 PM
Let me try explaining this
Let me try explaining this from another perspective…
The people who are native/long-time Californians are not trying to force anything on anyone else. Others get to **choose** whether or not they want to live here (as we do).
Some people apparently want to move here from somewhere else (making a **volutary choice** to move to a place with existing tax structures, laws, cultures, etc.) and then FORCE their beliefs and changes on other people who already live here. I guess that is what I have a problem with.
There are relatively few “liberal,” higher-tax, higher-regulation states; California is one of those states — some of us LIKE taxes and regulations that protect the public and provide a better way of life (in our opinion). There are many more “red” states where taxes are lower, public employee pay/benefits are lower, there are fewer regulations, etc. If that’s what someone likes, they can move to those places. They have a **choice.** Isn’t that what the much-vaunted “free market” (that Pri brags about so much) is all about?
February 6, 2012 @ 11:18 PM
Yes, but that is a **choice**
Yes, but that is a **choice** that they made when they moved. If they have regrets, that is nobody else’s fault, and nobody else is obligated to change things just to suit those who’ve (apparently) made bad **choices.**
[edit: this was in response to NSR’s post]
February 6, 2012 @ 12:40 PM
CA renter wrote:No, I want to
[quote=CA renter]No, I want to pay higher taxes on our dividends and LT gains.[/quote]
So do I.
[quote]I know what it’s like to work for a living vs. invest for a living. I’ve done both […][/quote]
As have I.
Seems like we are agreement on these policies.
So why do you brand me as “selfish” as you trot around spouting half-baked Marxist platitudes from the saddle of your high-horse?
BTW, you excluded a source of wealth. There’s work, investments, and inheritance.
Me, I’ve never received a dime from the latter.
February 6, 2012 @ 1:31 PM
pri_dk wrote:CA renter
[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]No, I want to pay higher taxes on our dividends and LT gains.[/quote]
So do I.
[quote]I know what it’s like to work for a living vs. invest for a living. I’ve done both […][/quote]
As have I.
Seems like we are agreement on these policies.
So why do you brand me as “selfish” as you trot around spouting half-baked Marxist platitudes from the saddle of your high-horse?
BTW, you excluded a source of wealth. There’s work, investments, and inheritance.
Me, I’ve never received a dime from the latter.[/quote]
I don’t believe in an inheritance tax because this money was already earned and taxed. I believe very strongly in private property rights, and once something is taxed, don’t think it should be taxed again. What is ours is our childrens’ and they should not be taxed if we pass away and they take control of the assets. They SHOULD be taxed at the higher and more progressive rates that I advocate for when they earn income from that wealth.
Contrary to popular myth, inheritance does not concentrate wealth, it tends to dilute it. In most cases, wealth goes from one or two entities/people to multiple entities/people. It’s when this money is used to “make more money” and gets taxed at a much lower rate that it becomes more concentrated. It’s the concentration of wealth — especially when it is not “earned” via labor — that I have a problem with.
FWIW, I get where you were going with this personal comment (yet, again). While we inherited some wealth (most from cap gains), the majority of our wealth was “earned” by us.
February 6, 2012 @ 1:58 PM
CA renter wrote:I believe
[quote=CA renter]I believe very strongly in private property rights […][/quote]
I can tell that you do. At least for your property.
[quote=CA renter]FWIW, I get where you were going with this personal comment (yet, again). While we inherited some wealth (most from cap gains), the majority of our wealth was “earned” by us.[/quote]
Sorry, I’m still trying to figure out what’s a “personal comment” and what is not.
So, from what I can tell, it works like this:
– One person calling someone “selfish” or telling them that they don’t deserve to live somewhere because of where they were born is not personal.
– One person stating that they themselves didn’t inherent any money is a personal comment.
Got it (I think?)
Also, nice job on the thorough inheritance and taxation rationalization. Well rehearsed, I can tell. (oops! was that “personal?”)
February 5, 2012 @ 8:24 PM
CAR you are so far off it is
CAR you are so far off it is scary.
Nobody and I repeat NOBODY is entitled to own land or a home. It is a priviledge. You want it your way, go live in a country where the govt owns it all and doles it out.
Don’t give me a sob story about shelter. People who do not own can rent. I would venture there is not a single person on this blog that has not rented. I bet they had parents that rented as well. Your argument is invalid. Furthermore there is not a lack of affordable housing at all. There are plenty of great cities with cheap housing, and guess what, investors buy there as well. So your “whoa is me, those investors are responsible for the high prices” cry is incorrect. The facts are that desireable locations have higher prices. The other fact is that the give aloan to anyone that has a pulse policy is a hell of a lot more responsible for the problem then anything else.
February 5, 2012 @ 11:01 PM
SDR,
You and I have very
SDR,
You and I have very different opinions about this, but that’s about where it ends. There is no “right” or “wrong” on this…just different. We have different values, and I believe that decent working peole are 100% more “deserving” of a home than investors are “deserving” a profit from buying up available housing inventory, either to sell at a profit or to rent out.
Asset price speculators are no different from ticket scalpers. Perhaps you think they add to the economy; I think they’re the biggest parasites on the planet. They don’t produce anything — neither goods nor services — and they manipulate prices which sends false demand/supply signals to the producers and consumers of the world, causing a gross misallocation of resources in many cases.
Yes, speculators absolutely can push prices up (and down), especially in markets where there are real supply constraints (like real estate). That is a cold, hard fact. You don’t have to believe it, but that doesn’t change reality.
February 5, 2012 @ 5:37 PM
pri_dk wrote:And how should
[quote=pri_dk]And how should we prevent investors from purchasing homes and renting them to others – a law forbidding ownership of rental properties?
Funny, there was a post from BG a while back describing the “typical” retired teacher as owning and managing couple of rental properties, just to make ends meet.[/quote]
One simple solution is for the government to outlaw any price to be associated with housing. Everyone can have just one house. You can’t buy more than one at a time. You can trade but there’s no monetary value in the transaction. There will be no renter, since everyone have one house for free. So, the demand for rental is 0, which mean no one will want to buy rental (even in the black market).
February 6, 2012 @ 7:04 AM
AN wrote:One simple solution
[quote=AN]One simple solution is for the government to outlaw any price to be associated with housing. Everyone can have just one house. You can’t buy more than one at a time. You can trade but there’s no monetary value in the transaction. There will be no renter, since everyone have one house for free. So, the demand for rental is 0, which mean no one will want to buy rental (even in the black market).[/quote]
Great idea!
One question, though: Who gets the big houses on the beach?
Probably the high-ranking members of the politburo.
February 6, 2012 @ 11:02 AM
pri_dk wrote:AN wrote:One
[quote=pri_dk][quote=AN]One simple solution is for the government to outlaw any price to be associated with housing. Everyone can have just one house. You can’t buy more than one at a time. You can trade but there’s no monetary value in the transaction. There will be no renter, since everyone have one house for free. So, the demand for rental is 0, which mean no one will want to buy rental (even in the black market).[/quote]
Great idea!
One question, though: Who gets the big houses on the beach?
Probably the high-ranking members of the politburo.[/quote]
That’s a simple answer. Me and all the people I like, since I thought up the solution :-D. If it sounds absurd…
February 5, 2012 @ 2:53 PM
no_such_reality wrote:So CA
[quote=no_such_reality]So CA renter, CalPers is one of the largest investors.
They ironically, own and have lost bundles in real estate.
Are you saying CalPers is victimizing people in order to provide the government worker pensions?
If CalPers doesn’t invest, then who is going lose that value so that the government workers can have their pension?
Alternately, my neighbors are in their 70s. Their house is worth north of $500,000, if not $700K. They bought it, 40 years ago, for price of a modern honda accord. Are they exploiting future buyers by reaping that gain?[/quote]
The vast majority of their real estate investments were in commercial/industrial RE, some multi-family (designed for rental) housing, and mortgage and related paper, not SFHs.
People who buy and sell a single home to live in are not speculators. I’m referring to investors who buy homes that they do not need nor want for personal shelter.
February 5, 2012 @ 3:16 PM
Good article about the
Good article about the lessons of the fall of Communism in The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9061328/The-lessons-of-the-fall-of-communism-have-still-not-been-learnt.html
February 6, 2012 @ 12:36 PM
They already do. Go look up
They already do. Go look up the IRS stats. Each tier of income pays higher effective income tax than those below. Including the same tier with capital gains.
The Buffet rule is punishing the 20% of successful people to go after the less than 1% of the 1%ers.
Income tax is income tax. Social security is social security. Marginal tax rate is not effective tax.
Now, when exactly does one go from being a deserving worker to that other camp?
I’m actually curious as your positions really are hypocrisy. Asset speculation is bad but
CalPERS is okay since only a portion of their stuff was residential, never mind those CDOs they were cleaned out on.
February 6, 2012 @ 1:09 PM
no_such_reality wrote:They
[quote=no_such_reality]They already do. Go look up the IRS stats. Each tier of income pays higher effective income tax than those below. Including the same tier with capital gains.
The Buffet rule is punishing the 20% of successful people to go after the less than 1% of the 1%ers.
Income tax is income tax. Social security is social security. Marginal tax rate is not effective tax.
Now, when exactly does one go from being a deserving worker to that other camp?
I’m actually curious as your positions really are hypocrisy. Asset speculation is bad but
CalPERS is okay since only a portion of their stuff was residential, never mind those CDOs they were cleaned out on.[/quote]
Huh? Perhaps I’m not getting what you’re trying to say, but L/T cap gains and qualified dividends are NOT taxed progressively. A person earning $xxx,xxx++ in “earned income” will pay a higher tax rate than someone whose income comes from qualifying dividends and L/T cap gains.
As stated before, I don’t have nearly the same issues with “paper” asset speculators as I do with those who speculate on physical goods, especially goods that are basic necessities — like housing and food/commodities. The main complaint I have with “paper” asset speculators is that they often don’t pay the same tax rates as labor. That should change, IMHO.
February 6, 2012 @ 1:48 PM
Again IRS tax stats don’t
Again IRS tax stats don’t agree with you. The Buffet’s rare. Semantically you are correct. The marginally tax rate on $100K is higher on income than capital gains. In reality it Is a moot point as both those with and without capital gains pay about 7% effective federal income tax if they are a home owner
Again, writing laws that affect 20% of the people extensive to chase the 1400 out of 110,000,000 tax filers is insane.
We favor capital gains because increasing capital is good. A nation with no capital ceases to exist.
February 6, 2012 @ 2:52 PM
no_such_reality wrote:Again
[quote=no_such_reality]Again IRS tax stats don’t agree with you. The Buffet’s rare. Semantically you are correct. The marginally tax rate on $100K is higher on income than capital gains. In reality it Is a moot point as both those with and without capital gains pay about 7% effective federal income tax if they are a home owner
Again, writing laws that affect 20% of the people extensive to chase the 1400 out of 110,000,000 tax filers is insane.
We favor capital gains because increasing capital is good. A nation with no capital ceases to exist.[/quote]
Just a nit here… Being a homeowner doesn’t improve your tax rate. Having a mortgage does. Remember, only 2/3’s of homes have mortgages on them.
February 6, 2012 @ 2:52 PM
no_such_reality wrote:Again
[quote=no_such_reality]Again IRS tax stats don’t agree with you. The Buffet’s rare. Semantically you are correct. The marginally tax rate on $100K is higher on income than capital gains. In reality it Is a moot point as both those with and without capital gains pay about 7% effective federal income tax if they are a home owner
Again, writing laws that affect 20% of the people extensive to chase the 1400 out of 110,000,000 tax filers is insane.
We favor capital gains because increasing capital is good. A nation with no capital ceases to exist.[/quote]
We’re not in agreement on this at all. Please direct us to those IRS stats.
As far as “capital” being good…that depends on how it’s being invested. Sometimes, it’s good; sometimes, it can be very damaging.
I’d say that labor is even more important than capital. Without labor, there is nothing to invest in. We should encourage productivity over speculative, zero-sum gambling.
February 6, 2012 @ 11:04 PM
pri and Allan, I think what
pri and Allan, I think what CAR was trying to say here is that we DO all have choices where to live and the CA Legislature set up the “systems” we have in this state long ago. I can tell you from experience that these “systems” are and will be virtually impossible to change.
In many ways, CA’s laws (some Rules of Court and “trust deed” method of priority filing, for example) were at the forefront of other states’ later adoption of CA’s procedures.
Anyone can complain all they want about how unfair some of CA’s “systems” and laws are set up or how overly regulated it is but I would prefer to spend my time on more productive endeavors. After going to another (southwestern) state years ago and swimming in a popular reservoir there, I returned two days later on a miserable plane ride due to a double ear infection setting in. I later learned that the area of the reservoir I was swimming in had been grossly polluted for about 5-6 weeks before my arrival (but no signs were posted to that effect and boats were still pulling skiers in the area).
We take a lot of quality-of-life issues here in CA for granted. Try living in a state which is lightly regulated or unregulated in this regard and see how you like it. I, for one, appreciate all the thought and hard work by past legislatures that has gone into protecting our wilderness, lakes, rivers and open spaces. One only has to drive CA’s scenic roads to see exactly what this means for themselves.
February 6, 2012 @ 11:05 PM
Exactly, BG. Thank you for
Exactly, BG. Thank you for stating it that way.
February 6, 2012 @ 11:30 PM
BG: To say that I take issue
BG: To say that I take issue with California’s overly burdensome regulations is not to say that I don’t want any regulation at all. I favor SMALL government, not NO government at all.
I don’t doubt for a second that we could maintain California’s high quality of life and manage to do away with considerable excess. I’m also not in the crowd that demonizes public workers, but I take huge issue with the public sector unions and the politicians sitting on the same side of the table.
I was 10 when Jerry Brown first took over the governship in 1975 and graduating high school when he left in 1983. Since that time, we’ve seen California plummet in terms of education and skyrocket in terms of incarceration. Not to make too fine a point of it, but the two most powerful unions in California are the CTA (Ca. Teacher’s Assn) and CCPOA (corrections union).
We’ve been sold the false narrative that pushing back on unions, bloated bureacracies and stifling regulation is somehow a recipe for disaster. I’d argue that the opposite is true. We do desperately need change in this state and it starts with saying “enough is enough”.
February 6, 2012 @ 11:46 PM
Allan,
You’re neglecting to
Allan,
You’re neglecting to mention the demographic changes that have occurred during that timeframe.
You’ve mentioned before that you attended private school, so you might have missed what happened in the 70s that changed many of California’s public schools.
Remember the bussing fiasco? Massive numbers of high-performing, upper/middle-class white kids were yanked out of urban schools and placed in private schools because they were going to be bussed from their local, middle-class schools to the blighted, urban, gang-infested inner-city schools. LA Unified, for one, never recovered from that. In the meantime, illegal immigrants with very little education and poor socio-economic backgrounds have flooded this state. In many districts, these “illegal immigrant” children (born here or not), represent the majority of students. Most of them have very little academic support at home, inferior English-speaking/comprehension skills, and many have to deal with living at or below the poverty line in busy, crowded conditions that are not at all conducive to studying and learning.
The teachers (and their unions) haven’t changed. The student body has changed…dramatically. That’s the #1 reason for the lower test scores, along with a much more rigorous curriculum than when you and I were attending school (belive it or not).
BTW, this also has a tremendous effect on our prison system.
February 6, 2012 @ 11:58 PM
Allan,
One more thing…you
Allan,
One more thing…you (and others) keep saying that union members and their employers “sit on the same side of the table.”
Have you ever participated in union negotiations? If you have, you’d know that public unions are no more “on the same side of the table” as other PRIVATE businesses that contract with government entities, or lobbyists who are looking for favors of one sort or another. In many cases, the public employers have a rather caustic relationship with the unions.
Not trying to get into another war here (quite frankly, I’m exhausted), but people need to stop claiming things as fact when they aren’t true.
Unions have no more power than any other group. If a private group of people (companies, industries, individual citizens, etc.) want to raise funds or campaign for a particular politician, they are just as free to do so as the public employee unions are.
If you can find a way to guarantee that NOBODY gets favors of any kind from public entities/politicians, then I’d agree that we can abolish public unions. The problem with that line of thinking is that it’s impossible to create such an environment. You’re suggesting that the power void (left by unions or private entities, or whatever group leaves) would continue along, unfilled. That’s not going to happen…ever.
February 7, 2012 @ 12:37 AM
Whoops! “busing,” not
Whoops! “busing,” not “bussing.”
February 7, 2012 @ 11:05 AM
CA renter wrote:Allan,
One
[quote=CA renter]Allan,
One more thing…you (and others) keep saying that union members and their employers “sit on the same side of the table.”
Have you ever participated in union negotiations? If you have, you’d know that public unions are no more “on the same side of the table” as other PRIVATE businesses that contract with government entities, or lobbyists who are looking for favors of one sort or another. In many cases, the public employers have a rather caustic relationship with the unions.
Not trying to get into another war here (quite frankly, I’m exhausted), but people need to stop claiming things as fact when they aren’t true.
Unions have no more power than any other group. If a private group of people (companies, industries, individual citizens, etc.) want to raise funds or campaign for a particular politician, they are just as free to do so as the public employee unions are.
If you can find a way to guarantee that NOBODY gets favors of any kind from public entities/politicians, then I’d agree that we can abolish public unions. The problem with that line of thinking is that it’s impossible to create such an environment. You’re suggesting that the power void (left by unions or private entities, or whatever group leaves) would continue along, unfilled. That’s not going to happen…ever.[/quote]
CAR: I’m not looking to go to war here, either, so I promise to keep it civil, but I do have to disagree with you re: unions and strongly.
The CTA and CCPOA wield tremendous power (just look at the pushback on charter schools/school reform attempts and what we’re paying prison guards). I have quite a few friends in law enforcement (largely city cops and deputies) and I know of prison guards making six figure incomes with an average guard (based on seniority) earning in the $55K -65K range.
I’m hard pressed to understand the concerns if we did away with unions. Would we suddenly see headlines that read: “Child Labor Returns to the DMV!”? Given all of the labor regulations and agencies dedicated to safe and fair working environments (i.e. FLSA, OSHA, NLRB, etc) what, exactly, are the unions doing for their members?
In California, the various public sector unions and the Democratic Party have had a long and cozy relationship. Too long and too cozy, IMHO. Upon Jerry Brown’s return, to whom was he returning favors? I think we all know the answer here.
NSR is right: The system is broken. We, as a state, are effectively insolvent and have one of the lowest bond ratings in the country. This state was once an economic superpower and our schools were the envy of the world (and, no, that isn’t hyperbole). So what happened? More important, how do we fix it? The status quo ante is taking us further down the road that leads off the cliff. And, no, that isn’t hyperbole, either.
February 27, 2012 @ 4:43 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
CAR: I’m not looking to go to war here, either, so I promise to keep it civil, but I do have to disagree with you re: unions and strongly.
The CTA and CCPOA wield tremendous power (just look at the pushback on charter schools/school reform attempts and what we’re paying prison guards). I have quite a few friends in law enforcement (largely city cops and deputies) and I know of prison guards making six figure incomes with an average guard (based on seniority) earning in the $55K -65K range.
I’m hard pressed to understand the concerns if we did away with unions. Would we suddenly see headlines that read: “Child Labor Returns to the DMV!”? Given all of the labor regulations and agencies dedicated to safe and fair working environments (i.e. FLSA, OSHA, NLRB, etc) what, exactly, are the unions doing for their members?
In California, the various public sector unions and the Democratic Party have had a long and cozy relationship. Too long and too cozy, IMHO. Upon Jerry Brown’s return, to whom was he returning favors? I think we all know the answer here.
NSR is right: The system is broken. We, as a state, are effectively insolvent and have one of the lowest bond ratings in the country. This state was once an economic superpower and our schools were the envy of the world (and, no, that isn’t hyperbole). So what happened? More important, how do we fix it? The status quo ante is taking us further down the road that leads off the cliff. And, no, that isn’t hyperbole, either.[/quote]
Thank you for keeping it civil, Allan.
Yes, *some* unions have cozy relationships with *some* politicians. Likewise, some private companies and industry heads have cozy relationships with some politicians. At this point in time, I’d say that private industry has far more pull than unions do. This is evidenced by the fact that there has been an all-out PR war by private industry and their political puppets against public labor unions. The fact that you’re hearing so much about public unions is because of a very deliberate attack on the part of these private interests.
Here’s the deal: public resources are shrinking, and everyone who gets govt money knows this (public employees, private contractors, lobbyists for private industry, lobbyists for the “welfare” system, immigration groups, etc.). Where once they co-existed well enough (though didn’t necessarily get along), they are now viciously attacking one another — with private industry winning, as evidenced by the plethora of anti-govt/worker articles in the MSM, and posts, comments, etc. on multiple blogs across the internet.
Public employee unions have been losing power over the years. They lose this power to the “private” interests who are looking to take what the unions were getting…and then some. The people who are initiating the attacks on public unions are NOT taxpayer advocates. I’m not nearly as concerned about whether or not people agree with me WRT unions, but it’s imperative that people understand what’s going on and what the consequences will be.
If one has to weigh how much “Joe Sixpack” benefits from these various forces, there is no question in my mind that he benefits most from unions having their place “at the table.” They are the only ones putting a floor under wages and benefits (in the PRIVATE sector…because private sector employers have to compete with public employers), keeping money in the communities (80-90% of money spent on public employees is immeditately spent right back into the communities where the taxes came from), and keeping opportunities open for all **qualified** people to have a place “at the table” via public employment.
This is a power play among well-connected, entrenced groups. It’s naive of people to think this is about lowering their taxes. That’s extremely unlikely to happen, even if we eliminate all public employee unions tomorrow; some of us would contend that people would eventually end up paying more for less, as has happened many times over the years (most of the time?) when public assets and/or responsibilities are turned over to private industry (think HOAs, the parking debacle in Chicago, etc.).
As far as FLSA, OSHA, etc., if unions were to disappear tomorrow, I’d bet good money that those worker protections would be largely dismantled within two years. Private industry is trying to strip them down on a daily basis, and unions are the only ones fighting them and keeping the “teeth” in these regulations.
As far as the teachers’ unions, yes, they fight *privately-owned/controlled* charter schools, but are charter schools really any better, on average?
“In five case study states, charter schools
are less likely to meet state performance
standards than traditional public schools.
It is impossible to know from this study
whether that is because of the
performance of the schools, the prior
achievement of the students, or some
other factor. The study design does not
allow us to determine whether or not
traditional public schools are more
effective than charter schools.”
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/pcsp-final/finalreport.pdf
http://www.educationjustice.org/newsletters/nlej_iss21_art5_detail_CharterSchoolAchievement.htm
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/charter-schools/about-the-brill-story-on-chart.html
[edit: Just want to point out that I am not personally opposed to charters as long as they are public charters and held to the same standards as regular public schools.]
As for the prison guards…I don’t think they are overpaid at all. They have one of the most dangerous, depressing, stressful, frustrating jobs around; they’re exposed to the very worst of society on a daily basis, live with threats against them and their families, etc. There are plenty of private sector workers who do far less — much less dangerous, less stressful, less beneficial for society — and make just as much money.
February 7, 2012 @ 11:12 AM
CA renter wrote: In many
[quote=CA renter] In many cases, the public employers have a rather caustic relationship with the unions.
[/quote]
But then again, we have people like Michael Zucchet – former ‘legislative and community affairs director for the San Diego City Fire Fighters’, former councilman, former acting mayor, former convicted conspirator, fraudster and extortionist, as of 2009 ‘the general manager of the San Diego Municipal Employees Association, the union that represents city workers.’
February 7, 2012 @ 7:26 AM
BG, in the twenty plus years
BG, in the twenty plus years I’ve been here, California has changed drastically. Some things like air quality are much better. Other things like education are worse.
I, like most that came here, just want Cali to be the great place that drew us here.
When it comes to places like LAUSD, it is broken. They admit to having a 35% drop out rate. We may not agree on how to fix, that is understandable. I know I dont have all the answers. What I find sad, and incredibly frustrating (not targeted at you), is the denial that LAUSD is broken. More money is the only solution some want to consider.
Then we look at prisons, we spend 50% more than the national average per inmate, twice what States like Florida and Texas spend, yet, the Feds got a decree and took over because it is mismanaged.
Res ipsa loquitur, it is broken.
Doing the same thing wont fix it and both parties have been beating the same drum for twenty plus years.
February 7, 2012 @ 10:08 AM
no_such_reality wrote:BG, in
[quote=no_such_reality]BG, in the twenty plus years I’ve been here, California has changed drastically. Some things like air quality are much better. Other things like education are worse.
I, like most that came here, just want Cali to be the great place that drew us here.
When it comes to places like LAUSD, it is broken. They admit to having a 35% drop out rate. We may not agree on how to fix, that is understandable. I know I dont have all the answers. What I find sad, and incredibly frustrating (not targeted at you), is the denial that LAUSD is broken. More money is the only solution some want to consider.
Then we look at prisons, we spend 50% more than the national average per inmate, twice what States like Florida and Texas spend, yet, the Feds got a decree and took over because it is mismanaged.
Res ipsa loquitur, it is broken.
Doing the same thing wont fix it and both parties have been beating the same drum for twenty plus years.[/quote]
I think LAUSD would benefit from more charter schools. There are enough very well-heeled residents in that county to put more of these together, IMHO. In addition, the US/Mex border is still very porous, no matter how much the Federal government has “reorganized” it in recent years (now “Homeland Security”). This contributes to non-citizens using CA’s schools and justice system (jails and prisons).
The CA prison system has grown exponentially in the last 18 years for ONE REASON … the “Three Strikes” law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law
CA voters passed proposition 184 in 1993 and later, in 2000, an amendment to CA’s “Three Strikes” law, Proposition 36. The passage of Prop 36 made court-ordered drug-treatment beds available to low-income two or three-strikers arrested for possession and/or sale (Diversion). Successful completion of a diversion program would often bump the recidivist’s “strike” down to a misdemeanor and thus keep him/her out of a life in prison.
A couple of cases where the defendants were considered “three-strikers” when their “third-strike” offense was not a violent crime went all the way to the USSC. Ten years later (in 2003), the USSC opined that they would not sit as a “Superlegislature” to CA’s legislature and that such sentences to do not violate the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Perhaps overzealous CA voters in 1993, disgusted with constantly hearing about violent crime and being victims of rampant property crimes, could not see the crushing burden of the “Three-Strikes Law” on CA taxpayers in years to come when they voted. Hence, Prop 36 (which has shorter-term costs of diversion built into it).
So we have these exorbitant bills running the CDC that you see today. We did it to ourselves, Piggs.
I for one would rather see repeat offenders of non-violent crimes rehabbed and back to work supporting (fully or partially) their families and paying off their fines and restitution. They can’t do any of this behind bars so we, the taxpayers have to pay relatives and strangers to raise their kids for them.
CA’s “Three-Strikes” law has far-reaching ramifications for CA taxpayers that Joe6P voter couldn’t see then and still can’t see now.
February 7, 2012 @ 9:27 AM
just a fun thought
just a fun thought experiment…what do you think would happen to the state if all the limited government type people up and left, as CAR seems to be suggesting.
February 7, 2012 @ 9:36 AM
jstoesz wrote:just a fun
[quote=jstoesz]just a fun thought experiment…what do you think would happen to the state if all the limited government type people up and left, as CAR seems to be suggesting.[/quote]
Someone suggested splitting the state into North and South California last year IIRC. That would be an interestingly similar correlation to the “limited government type people” up and leave. SD, OC and all the inland from Fresno down to the border will be South Cali and LA up to coast to SF will be North Cali. All the democrats in South Cali will move to North Cali and vice versa :-).
February 7, 2012 @ 9:43 AM
I would contend that much of
I would contend that much of the inland areas are rent seeking nearly as bad as the coastal areas.
February 7, 2012 @ 10:35 AM
Texas did three strikes in
Texas did three strikes in 1973. Florida theirs in 1996, two years after ours. They both pay roughly half per inmate what California does.
February 7, 2012 @ 10:39 AM
no_such_reality wrote:Texas
[quote=no_such_reality]Texas did three strikes in 1973. Florida theirs in 1996, two years after ours. They both pay roughly half per inmate what California does.[/quote]
What are TX and FL’s inmate populations relative to CA’s?
And was the language in their “Three-Strikes” laws such that the third strike, which could put one away for life, did NOT have to be a violent crime??
February 7, 2012 @ 11:07 AM
The costs are PER
The costs are PER inmate.
Cali spends more on guards per inmate than FL spends on their whole system.
Both Texas and CA have about 160k prisoners.
Next bogeyman please