unemployment rate 4.1%
2.8% in Iowait
unemployment rate 4.1%
2.8% in Iowa
Don't see it slowing up around here - the dirt is flying, lots of iron on the job sites.we have some deals with DR/Lennar. they are STARVING for fully entitled shovel ready deals or as close to possible and they will pay through the nose for it. they'd rather pay more a fully entitled & developed site or for a fully entitled project and hire someone to do the development than go through the headache of land banking, entitling, and developing because while it's true DR/Lennar are publicly traded fortune 500 companies with the ability to raise more money than god to scoop up raw land they typically do not land bank- they don't want huge liabilities on their balance sheets- they are publicly traded companies- and all they care about is: share price. they aren't really home builders they are finance companies involved in building single/multi-family homes. and they build straight up garbage product- and in some of their communities down this way they charge just under $1 million for a 2,500 sq ft complete piece of cookie cutter sh*t that probably cost them $60-80/sq ft to build and where they've cut every corner and greased the city/township/county to get inspections passed that no other builder could get passed. And it's because: they paid through the nose for the land.
But DR and Lennar have the money to play the long game, as does Taylor Morrison. Those are the most active right now in these parts.
Florida Housing Crisis Hits D.R. Horton & Lennar | Edmond Thorne | NewsBreak Original (https://original.newsbreak.com/@edmond-thorne-1883083/3517207712679-florida-housing-crisis-hits-d-r-horton-lennar?_f=app_share&pd=00g48xrH&lang=en_US&send_time=1720215592&trans_data={)
Fortune 100 company layoffs beginning in earnest and will continue steadily over the next 3-4 years. We'll see how the economy absorbs that but it's going to be very ugly for a lot of people, for a while.Where I worked, they didn't do layoffs, ever. They did "early retirement", which I got. I see the layoff news mostly concentrated in Tech. Aside from layoffs, another factor is when companies stop hiring newbies.
Where I worked, they didn't do layoffs, ever. They did "early retirement", which I got. I see the layoff news mostly concentrated in Tech. Aside from layoffs, another factor is when companies stop hiring newbies.I'd volunteer for early retirement today, lol.
Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and other tech giants are cutting back on headcount—but their spending on hardware and real estate keeps soaring | Fortune (https://fortune.com/2024/05/19/microsoft-meta-amazon-tech-layoffs-headcount-talent-hiring-research-development-capex/)
we have some deals with DR/Lennar. they are STARVING for fully entitled shovel ready deals or as close to possible and they will pay through the nose for it. they'd rather pay more a fully entitled & developed site or for a fully entitled project and hire someone to do the development than go through the headache of land banking, entitling, and developing because while it's true DR/Lennar are publicly traded fortune 500 companies with the ability to raise more money than god to scoop up raw land they typically do not land bank- they don't want huge liabilities on their balance sheets- they are publicly traded companies- and all they care about is: share price. they aren't really home builders they are finance companies involved in building single/multi-family homes. and they build straight up garbage product- and in some of their communities down this way they charge just under $1 million for a 2,500 sq ft complete piece of cookie cutter sh*t that probably cost them $60-80/sq ft to build and where they've cut every corner and greased the city/township/county to get inspections passed that no other builder could get passed. And it's because: they paid through the nose for the land.We alone have 7 land development projects going right now with Lennar and DR. They'll go through entitlement and move dirt if they have to.
I'd volunteer for early retirement today, lol.Of course, with "early retirement", one needs a pretty decent nest egg to survive for a while. It's a tough calculation often as not, I suggest enlisting a competent financial advisor. You come out with no SS of course, and no health insurance or Medicare.
I was bored and depressed. Each day driving in was awful. I had no real job, was doing nothing remotely useful to anyone, and had no outs. And they replaced me with TWO people, no kidding, promoted one of them to my level. I was all astonishment, but my "boss" was interested in building an empire, one that did nothing of value.That was her. They did not replace her. There was no exit interview or bonus.
It was all in the budget each year so nobody cared.
I did have a rather entertaining exit interview. I would have blown it off, but I thought it might be required somehow to get the bonus. So I went.
[img width=500 height=288.996]https://i.imgur.com/fytZXaY.png[/img]Go Gators?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/blue-state-exodus-irs-data-income-7c878e40?st=sp9vfvqfk55sa5f&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
A key part of America’s economy has shifted into reverse | CNN Business (https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/07/economy/stocks-week-ahead-services-sector-slow-restaurants-stores/index.html)This doesn't surprise me at all. Disposable income is down for most people.
Need to cut taxes and I don't mean just decreasing the forecast budget increase a bit. Like 30% across the board to start so roads out of DC look like Moses leading Israel out of Egypt.Need to cut government spending, like 30% for starters. If I could, I would go through the Fed deptments and have everyone stand in line and number off 1 to 3 and fire all the threes. For those remaining, tell them we do this again next month.
Need to cut government spending, like 30% for starters. If I could, I would go through the Fed deptments and have everyone stand in line and number off 1 to 3 and fire all the threes. For those remaining, tell them we do this again next month.And we would not notice a difference at all.
Cutting spending by a third sounds nice, but a LOT of government spending is mandatory and cannot be cut, no matter what, things like debt service.Exactly. You can't get to 30% without absolutely massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid benefits, and to defense.
The largest nonmandatory spending is for defense. The other spending items are relatively small potatoes, usually under $100 billion (which is a rather large tater).
how about no cuts, just cap the budget at current.Can't with SS/Medicare/Medicaid. Those benefits are defined by law and you can't just "decide" not to pay them.
No increases for next year.
Can't with SS/Medicare/Medicaid. Those benefits are defined by law and you can't just "decide" not to pay them.just pay the same as last year
Technically Congress could cut benefits, of course... Good luck with that!
I don't think the 30% was meant across the board.Yeah and cutting 2/3 of them would make very little change to federal spending, too.
I think that was meant for Federal employee volume cut. Could probably cut 2/3 of them and not notice a thing.
Yeah and cutting 2/3 of them would make very little change to federal spending, too.Agreed. But it would make life a lot better for a lot of people.
just pay the same as last yearTwo problems:
no cuts, but no increases
Cutting spending by a third sounds nice, but a LOT of government spending is mandatory and cannot be cut, no matter what, things like debt service.The mandatory spending on the government could be reduced by cutting the number of government emloyees and by extension, the infrastructure and other assets they use in their jobs.
The largest nonmandatory spending is for defense. The other spending items are relatively small potatoes, usually under $100 billion (which is a rather large tater).
The mandatory spending on the government could be reduced by cutting the number of government emloyees and by extension, the infrastructure and other assets they use in their jobs.
The first thing I would do is eliminate a few Federal Departments starting with Education and Energy. That could save a few BILLION per year alone.
Currently, our debt is about 100% of GDP. We CANNOT sustain that. We have to make drastic changes or we will bankrupt the nation. You have to start somewhere and to me, the most logical place is wiping out entire, worthless departments. It doesn't solve the problem, but starts us in the proper direction. Its like the old question, how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.
You're using all-caps on BILLIONS when we're talking about problems numbering in the TRILLIONS of dollars.This is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said:
Once you reach "A LOT", nobody really seems to notice how big that actual "lot" is. Ie, they'll argue like crazy over saving $5k on a $50k purchase but when you are asking for $5M, nobody asks any questions.Basically any cut in the Federal Budget sounds like a lot of money:
This is really stupid because saving 10% on a purchase of $50K is only $5k, big deal but saving 10% on a a $5M purchase is HALF-A-FREAKING-MILLION DOLLARS.
I especially laughed because I assume that you, as a Libertarian, probably generally agree with them on cutting Federal Employees but you realize that it wouldn't materially impact the budget so your argument isn't "Oh my god we can't do that" but rather "Yeah, so what."Exactly. If I were President, the first thing I'd do in the executive branch would be to institute a hiring freeze. You can't hire, not even replacement for attrition, without a VERY high-level signoff. Instead I'd try to find a way to incentivize internal transfer if a position of absolute need must be filled--move someone from somewhere else.
The next thing is that people on the accounting side of things have a saying that whenever cuts need to be made, Councils (municipal legislatures so like Congress but for your City instead of the US) almost always focus on "Paperclips and Overtime".Yeah, and I constantly see people saying that we need to cut down on "waste, fraud, and abuse."
I frankly think that we should probably cut a LOT of defense spending but I also realize that this wouldn't even have a material impact on the overall budget. Per your chart Defense spending was just over 0.8 Trillion out of a budget of $6.1 Trillion. Ie, defense represents around 13% of total expenditures so even a drastic 25% cut in defense spending would only reduce the overall budget by around 3%.3% is material. On $6.1T that's $183B. That's actually, ya know, a LOT of money.
Yeah, and I constantly see people saying that we need to cut down on "waste, fraud, and abuse."Eh, I think that "fraud, waste, and abuse" is material and a lot more than 0.1% but cutting it also requires MORE not less federal employees and there is a major diminishing returns issue. At some point it becomes more expensive to root out the fraud than it is to just pay the fraudulent claims.
Great. So when we've cut out 0.1% of the federal budget, what are you going to do to actually make a difference?
3% is material. On $6.1T that's $183B. That's actually, ya know, a LOT of money.My defense spending would be the 2% of GDP that we "require" of our NATO allies. At $805 Billion it is 3% of GDP so I would advocate to cut it by 1/3 to about $500 Billion. That would save around $300 Billion and yeah, that isn't nothing. It IS a lot of money but still it is ~5% of the Budget and would only cut the deficit from $1.7 to $1.4 Trillion.
It's not enough to solve the problem, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I mean, do we really think we can't protect America with $600B/year rather than $800B per year. $600B will still be double China, and six times higher than Russia.
As in your first quoted portion, it's not that I'm arguing against the idea of reducing federal employment and cutting worthless departments. I'm in favor of that. I'm just saying that to actually make a difference, you have to think bigger. The proposed Department of Education for 2025 is $82B. Great. Mark it zero, Dude. So now you've reduced the deficit from $1.7T to $1.618T. That's good, but it ain't enough.
Eh, I think that "fraud, waste, and abuse" is material and a lot more than 0.1% but cutting it also requires MORE not less federal employees and there is a major diminishing returns issue. At some point it becomes more expensive to root out the fraud than it is to just pay the fraudulent claims.Fair enough. I apologize for hyperbole. I'm sure it's much higher than 0.1%, but the point I was trying to make is that it's not $1.7T.
At the end of the day, you can't really move this needle without substantial cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those are political third rails so here we are.
I saw a poll, looking for it, where the gap between "how are you financially compared to x years ago" vs. "how is the American economy doing vs. x years ago" is hilariously different.The self vs the masses. Everyone's an exception. LOL
I think like almost every hot button issue, people think everything is always bad, because the news tells them it is. Even though their personal lives generally consistently get better, no matter who is in power
The self vs the masses. Everyone's an exception. LOLOr maybe the media sells fear & chaos. Even when their own lives are generally fine.
Or maybe the media sells fear & chaos. Even when their own lives are generally fine.https://youtu.be/PqccEpqvwPY?si=_xGhhKyqTeDh-3Ra
And who are they going to believe? The media, or their lyin' eyes?
Or maybe the media sells fear & chaos. Even when their own lives are generally fine.It's especially sad that we all pretty much know that talking heads and social media websites actively take advantage of our tendencies and cognitions to exploit and manipulate us. But we still watch. We still click.
And who are they going to believe? The media, or their lyin' eyes?
It's especially sad that we all pretty much know that talking heads and social media websites actively take advantage of our tendencies and cognitions to exploit and manipulate us. But we still watch. We still click.I don't. When I see an obvious clickbait headline, I avoid it out of principle. When I see a news story that I think is overly dramatized, or slanted, or designed to attack my confirmation bias, I try to drill down as close as I can to the original sources to figure out what's going on and make up my own mind.
I don't. When I see an obvious clickbait headline, I avoid it out of principle. When I see a news story that I think is overly dramatized, or slanted, or designed to attack my confirmation bias, I try to drill down as close as I can to the original sources to figure out what's going on and make up my own mind.The mainstream media is everything that doesn't regurgitate what we already believe
I realize I'll probably sound off to quote Ayn Rand here, but one of her axioms is really important: "Allow nothing to pass the verdict of your own mind." Go into the world assuming everyone's trying to manipulate you, and that you have to wear and maintain mental armor against it.
I do realize that's anecdotal, and I'm the exception.
I saw a poll, looking for it, where the gap between "how are you financially compared to x years ago" vs. "how is the American economy doing vs. x years ago" is hilariously different.I personally have done very well financially since 2020, mostly out of luck. I don't credit or blame Biden for that. I try and think about how the country is doing, and it seems pretty clear the middle and lower middle are struggling and don't like it. Inflation was a shock. "We" got used to 2% inflation for decades, and when it jumps to 9%, OMG. And wages struggled to keep up of course. So folks had to cut back, and use credit cards, etc. The cutting back part seems to be happening NOW.
I think like almost every hot button issue, people think everything is always bad, because the news tells them it is. Even though their personal lives generally consistently get better, no matter who is in power
This is a consumer driven economy and if cutting back is real and wide spread ....This is one of the weirdest and most interesting thing about our economy:
This is one of the weirdest and most interesting thing about our economy:So we should believe our leaders when they say things are going well and we’ll all do better!!
It is consumer driven and when consumers *THINK* that a recession is coming, they cut back on spending. If that is widespread enough it becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophecy as:
- Consumer anxiety depresses consumer spending, then
- Depressed consumer spending causes a recession, then
- Some of those anxious consumers get laid off essentially because they thought they were going to get laid off.
So we should believe our leaders when they say things are going well and we’ll all do better!!The smart play is to be a contrarian: Spend MORE during busts and LESS during booms. This is especially true for hyper-cyclical industries like construction.
(I kid, though the addiction to bad news is not ideal)
The smart play is to be a contrarian: Spend MORE during busts and LESS during booms. This is especially true for hyper-cyclical industries like construction.Like Keynes advocated.
On the deficit, I think the best we could expect, at best, is to have the debt grow more slowly than GDP. At best.Agreed, and you can grow your way out of the problem. These two are the same chart but one is denominated in dollars while the other is in %GDP.
There is no practicable way to cut the deficit to zero inside some 30 year plan that would get upset along the way.
Like Keynes advocated.Yep.
Unfortunately our government didn't get the message. They spend a lot during busts and spend even more during booms.
I personally have done very well financially since 2020, mostly out of luck. I don't credit or blame Biden for that. I try and think about how the country is doing, and it seems pretty clear the middle and lower middle are struggling and don't like it. Inflation was a shock. "We" got used to 2% inflation for decades, and when it jumps to 9%, OMG. And wages struggled to keep up of course. So folks had to cut back, and use credit cards, etc. The cutting back part seems to be happening NOW.Many did not cut back, but they are now because their cards are maxed out.
This is a consumer driven economy and if cutting back is real and wide spread ....
Agreed, and you can grow your way out of the problem. These two are the same chart but one is denominated in dollars while the other is in %GDP.this is my idea for capping spending.
This is of great concern.because they didn't plan for it and start saving when they were 30 years old?
Why retirement is out of reach for many working Americans (usatoday.com) (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/07/10/why-americans-cannot-afford-retirement/74303336007/)
because they didn't plan for it and start saving when they were 30 years old?
the stock market has been great the past 30 years
You gotta have funds available for investing. Some folks just don't have enough after they've paid all their bills, it's not always because of spending frivolously on luxury items. Although that's certainly a problem for some, as well.Unskilled/low skill laborers are VASTLY poorer than they were 50-60 years ago due to the importation of millions of competitors for their jobs.
Unskilled/low skill laborers are VASTLY poorer than they were 50-60 years ago due to the importation of millions of competitors for their jobs.Is this true in an absolute sense, or a relative sense? The measured poverty rate per household has been pretty steady since about 1970 as I recall.
Unskilled/low skill laborers are VASTLY poorer than they were 50-60 years ago due to the importation of millions of competitors for their jobs.Yeah, it's not that wages pleateaued for like 40 years, adjusting for inflation. You're right.
Vastly poorer to me is not he same as plateaued.Buddy, I have no idea what you're saying here or how to respond.
Yeah, it's not that wages pleateaued for like 40 years, adjusting for inflation. You're right.I'd think @medinabuckeye1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1547) might say wages for the middle and lower classes plateaued because of immigration. I'd think you might say that they've plateaued due to capitalist greed.
From the above "Consumers have more “breathing room” at the store"Is that really true? All I hear is how hard it is to hire workers these days and that would seemingly have to translate into a more worker-friendly environment where they can command higher wages. And likewise I've heard companies complaining about labor costs going up to keep up with inflation.
This would only be true if employers were giving even small increases in annual pay but in reality many employers have suspended annual pay increases over the past couple of years. So any increase at all in consumer prices, is a net decrease in buying power, for those affected.
Wages have increased broadly speaking, they often can't keep up with effective inflation. Real wages are stagnant for most groups.That makes sense, that the pay increases were smaller than inflation.
Wages have increased at fast food placesuntil said places go out of business
Is that really true? All I hear is how hard it is to hire workers these days and that would seemingly have to translate into a more worker-friendly environment where they can command higher wages. And likewise I've heard companies complaining about labor costs going up to keep up with inflation.
It might be partly anecdotal, but my wife in the healthcare industry has had things be MUCH different than it was before COVID. Part of this is a lot of healthcare workers who burned out during COVID and may have left the industry to do something else. But she recently (a little over a year ago) had to replace a medical assistant and couldn't hire someone without offering a 15% pay bump. And her doctors increased her pay by a similar amount to keep the gap between her and the MA in the same range.
My own personal anecdotal info is less typical, because data storage--a secular growth market--went through a slowdown unlike anything we've seen for decades. On top of layoffs, we had some austerity measures that were unlike anything I've ever seen. But even we went back to giving raises this spring as we started to climb out of it.
Maybe some of this is colored by being in CA and isn't typical of the rest of the country. But it seems that companies have been forced to do what they can to increase wages, even if it's not increasing at a level commensurate with inflation. I'd say overall purchasing power probably decreased, but have wages not increased at all for most people?
Any company that hasn't given raises in the past 2 years has probably lost workersWell, yes, of course. There's been a ton of layoffs all over the country. Tech is getting hit hard, and it's really only just begun. The wave of "AI layoffs" hasn't really even started yet.
In Austin, Tech is stagnating. Lots of layoffs, supply of people outstripping demand, resulting depression of salaries and the works. My evidence, too, is only anecdotal, but then again, I wasn't speaking for the broad economy, only for those in this particular category. Many of my friends are working for the same income they were 4 years ago. A couple are working for less, as their companies have asked for broad salary cuts rather than layoffs. And some, aren't working at all, having been laid off.Got it. I thought you were talking more broad-based.
None of those people are finding any "relief" that consumer prices have "only" gone up 1% over the past year.
Yeah, it's not that wages pleateaued for like 40 years, adjusting for inflation. You're right.Um, WHY?
So yes Sherlock / @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) / Captain Obvious: "wages pleateaued for like 40 years, adjusting for inflation." That isn't up for debate, it is a pretty well established fact. The question here is why and what to do about it.However, the question is a little bit more complex, partly because we have, as a society, done something about it. The amount the poor pay of that income in taxes is effectively nil, and the benefits they get from government are typically nonzero and positive too. Which clouds things a little.
(https://i.imgur.com/8eXnSpy.png)Dear CATO:
However, the question is a little bit more complex, partly because we have, as a society, done something about it. The amount the poor pay of that income in taxes is effectively nil, and the benefits they get from government are typically nonzero and positive too. Which clouds things a little.Agree completely on take-home vs earnings. Nobody cares what their pay is. They care what they get.
I know this would be considered a somewhat biased organization, but I don't think their math is wrong: https://www.cato.org/blog/reality-incomes-taxes-redistribution-america
As is often said, it doesn't matter what the number on the top of your pay stub is, it ultimately only matters what your "take home" pay is.
It may be that the poorest have seen their wages stagnate, but they pay less (basically zero) in taxes on that income and they benefit from government transfer programs, so they basically take home more than they earn.
As a libertarian you cannot possibly see this as a good thing.Honestly in our society, it's probably a necessary thing. Even if it creates a bunch of distortions and externalities.
Honestly in our society, it's probably a necessary thing. Even if it creates a bunch of distortions and externalities.My issue is the gap because it has serious detrimental impacts on social cohesion and society at large.
But the point is that it is, in fact, A thing.
Whereas folks like OAM use "real wage stagnation" as a doom and gloom thing about how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting screwed, it's a little bit more nuanced than that. The rich are getting richer but not as much as shown (due to taxes), and the poor are actually getting slightly richer, even if they're still mostly getting screwed.
Ask yourselves (ye top and 4th Quintile posters here), when is the last time you socialized willingly with anyone below the middle Quintile?Do my kids count? Because they don't earn shit.
Um, WHY?The top 2 lines employ the bottom 3 lines. If employer wages have leapt and the employee wages are stagnant, it's a pretty easy "why."
I think this chart that @Cincydawg (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=870) posted is useful:
[img width=500 height=362.992]https://i.imgur.com/rGO74h0.png[/img]
So yes Sherlock / @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) / Captain Obvious: "wages pleateaued for like 40 years, adjusting for inflation." That isn't up for debate, it is a pretty well established fact. The question here is why and what to do about it.
I'd think @medinabuckeye1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1547) might say wages for the middle and lower classes plateaued because of immigration. I'd think you might say that they've plateaued due to capitalist greed.Well, employing illegal immigrants is....illegal, so it's still a case of capitalist greed if that's the bigger issue. Paying those immigrants less = more money for the employers. Rinse. Repeat. Shrug. Win.
The top 2 lines employ the bottom 3 lines. If employer wages have leapt and the employee wages are stagnant, it's a pretty easy "why."This is a lot like blaming corporate greed for inflation. Ok, were corporations NOT greedy for the past 35 years of low inflation.
The employers pay as little as possible to get 'enough' output for steady growth and then keep all the increases.
You can find the stats that show CEO income to employee income ratios exploding over the same time period.
It's unethical. We all know it. But the winners shrug and the losers continue to live on the razor's edge of survival.
This is a lot like blaming corporate greed for inflation. Ok, were corporations NOT greedy for the past 35 years of low inflation. Their relative wealth has grown with the income disparity.Unskilled/low-skilled labor isn't value, and thus, isn't paid even decently. There's no incentive to pay it decently because unskilled laborers don't have any power.
Similarly here, were CEO's NOT greedy and unethical in the 1960's when bottom Quintile earnings were closer to the others? Yes, but their profits weren't as great, so the disparity was less.
Also, if CEO's (who are top 5% not top two Quintiles) can just unilaterally pay whatever they want to their employees then why do they bother to pay decent and increasing-over-time wages to their higher-level employees? Good question. I suspect it's to delineate a line between white collar and blue collar. In-group and out-group.
The "corporate greed is the culprit" argument fails because you can't realistically argue that Carnegie/Rockefeller were LESS greedy than today's CEO's. You're citing the guys monopoly laws were practically invented for?
Bottom Quintile earnings did not fall because CEO's suddenly woke up in the mid-60's one morning and said "hey, lets pay less to our low-end employees and keep more money for ourselves". Idk why you threw this in.
CEO's have always been incentivized to pay as little as possible to get the output. The difference isn't changing Corporate Greed. By the way, most of those CEO's and Billionaires are Democrats so I *COULD* just say ok, your fault. I'm not a Dem, as I've said countless times on here. I don't give a shit what party a CEO subscribes to. It's completely irrelevant.
Wages are a price for labor and like any other price they are set in the market based on supply and demand:
- Increase the supply and (all else being equal), price drops.
- Decrease the supply and (all else being equal), price rises.
- Increase the demand and (all else being equal), price rises.
- Decrease the demand and (all else being equal), price drops. Great, this is why we're looking at aggregate data over decades.
Our Bottom Quintile and 2nd Quintile earners are primarily suffering from two compounding factors:
- Automation and computerization have caused a downward pressure on the demand for unskilled/low-skilled labor. Decreases in demand cause decreases in price.
- America's Immigration Restrictionism of roughly 1920's to 1965 ended with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. That combined with a growing refusal to make even minimal efforts to enforce the border and keep out illegals has flooded the market with vast sums of unskilled and low-skilled laborers. Don't illegally hire people just to make an extra buck.
The employers pay as little as possible to get 'enough' output for steady growth and then keep all the increases.Employers don't set wages. The employers pay wages that are defined not by the employers, but by the supply/demand balance in the market for the workers that can do the job.
Unskilled/low-skilled labor isn't value, and thus, isn't paid even decently. There's no incentive to pay it decently because unskilled laborers don't have any power.I continue to state that "unskilled/low-skilled" workers is a rough category with little meaning.
And there is always an excess of unskilled/low-skilled workers. Most people don't have a 4-year degree. Illegal immigrants flooded an already flooded market.
Also globalization. Low-skill workers aren't just competing with other low-skill Americans and low-skill immigrants (legal or not). They're competing with low-skill workers in foreign countries where the prevailing wages are a fraction of what they are here.
Our Bottom Quintile and 2nd Quintile earners are primarily suffering from two compounding factors:
- Automation and computerization have caused a downward pressure on the demand for unskilled/low-skilled labor. Decreases in demand cause decreases in price.
- America's Immigration Restrictionism of roughly 1920's to 1965 ended with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. That combined with a growing refusal to make even minimal efforts to enforce the border and keep out illegals has flooded the market with vast sums of unskilled and low-skilled laborers.
Employers don't set wages. The employers pay wages that are defined not by the employers, but by the supply/demand balance in the market for the workers that can do the job.Agreed, but the corporations desire and gain influence with politicians, other stakeholders, and each other in order to influence the ebbs and flows of their industries. They move mountains to limit risk and any increases to labor costs (and other costs, obviously).
If lots of people can do a job (such as low-skill labor), the supply exceeds the demand and drives down wages. If few people can do a job (like highly technical or complicated things like, for example, neurosurgery), the demand exceeds the supply and drives up wages.
You're right, of course, that the employers want to pay as little as they can. To pay more than they have to would be, well, stupid. But how low they can get away with is dependent on market rates.
Different businesses also do different things within that... For example even in a low-skill job like fast food, In & Out here locally is known for paying wages above and beyond what is typical for fast food joints. They make that choice because of what they get for it--access to higher quality workers than their competition, lower turnover rates, and better employee morale.
You may view labor through the lens of "exploiters vs exploited", but as with everything, it's always a lot more complicated than you think.
Also globalization. Low-skill workers aren't just competing with other low-skill Americans and low-skill immigrants (legal or not). They're competing with low-skill workers in foreign countries where the prevailing wages are a fraction of what they are here.Yeah, this is fucked up, too. I don't like the idea of banning it, of course, but as long as it's allowed, what can you do?
I continue to state that "unskilled/low-skilled" workers is a rough category with little meaning.For me, it's any job a person off the street could do with a few minutes/hours/days of apprenticeship or a 4-hour training video. Picking cabbage. Flipping burgers. Hammering nails. Cleaning carpets. Etc.
Agreed, but the corporations desire and gain influence with politicians, other stakeholders, and each other in order to influence the ebbs and flows of their industries. They move mountains to limit risk and any increases to labor costs (and other costs, obviously).That was the point of the graph I made which showed income distribution when government transfers and taxes are added in. You may claim that "real wages" have been stagnant in the lower quintiles for 40+ years, but the poor have actually made real gains over those years. What you're advocating for is actually happening.
With your post - if it accompanied a chart in which every line had gradual increase/uptick, that'd be great. Ethical. Fair.
But it's not. And it's not. And it's not.
"Life's not fair," no shit, Fro.
Well, it could be much more fair and the billionaires would still be billionaires, the millionaires would still be millionaires, and the poor would still be poor.
But the fewer people we have at the ends of the income bell curve, the better.
Well, employing illegal immigrants is....illegal, so it's still a case of capitalist greed if that's the bigger issue. Paying those immigrants less = more money for the employers. Rinse. Repeat. Shrug. Win.Eh, fine but there has also been substantially no effort to actually enforce the law. E-verify has been repeatedly spiked by the R-leaning Cheap Labor Lobby and the D-leaning More D's lobby.
Unskilled/low-skilled labor isn't value, and thus, isn't paid even decently. There's no incentive to pay it decently because unskilled laborers don't have any power.Unskilled/low skilled labor in the US for generations was MUCH better paid than in Europe. Want to know why? Because we had LOTS of land and it was cheap so if a guy thought the factory in Boston wasn't offering enough he could go die of dysentery on the way out West to try to make it as an independent Farmer.
And there is always an excess of unskilled/low-skilled workers. Most people don't have a 4-year degree. Illegal immigrants flooded an already flooded market.
Illegal immigrants flooded an already flooded market.For the purpose of this argument, I'll accept your premise. Ok, the market was already flooded. So then we should . . . Flood it MORE?
I continue to state that "unskilled/low-skilled" workers is a rough category with little meaning.The exact definition isn't really important. I'll accept Fro's:
For me, it's any job a person off the street could do with a few minutes/hours/days of apprenticeship or a 4-hour training video. Picking cabbage. Flipping burgers. Hammering nails. Cleaning carpets. Etc.
Also globalization. Low-skill workers aren't just competing with other low-skill Americans and low-skill immigrants (legal or not). They're competing with low-skill workers in foreign countries where the prevailing wages are a fraction of what they are here.This is true but only to an extent. Sure, we can offshore the building of widgets and ship the widgets back from Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, China, Timbucktoo, etc. We can't offshore the mowing of your lawn or the drywalling of your new house.
Agreed, but the corporations desire and gain influence with politicians, other stakeholders, and each other in order to influence the ebbs and flows of their industries. They move mountains to limit risk and any increases to labor costs (and other costs, obviously).Again, this presupposes that robber barons were MORE ethical than today's CEO's. Really?
With your post - if it accompanied a chart in which every line had gradual increase/uptick, that'd be great. Ethical. Fair.
But it's not. And it's not. And it's not.
That was the point of the graph I made which showed income distribution when government transfers and taxes are added in. You may claim that "real wages" have been stagnant in the lower quintiles for 40+ years, but the poor have actually made real gains over those years. What you're advocating for is actually happening.I'm not down on capitalism, I was just copying the phrase you used. Capitalism is great. But like a few bad apples ruining things for the rest of us (PSA checkpoints, women not going out alone at night, no booze on Sundays (wait, that's a ton of bad apples (j/k)), I think those who are driven towards unlimited growth/wealth/power/influence largely ruin capitalism.
The truth is that capitalism / the free market is the greatest prosperity engine that humanity has ever seen. It's the goose laying golden eggs. It's not perfect. It doesn't account for everyone. So use capitalism to generate the wealth and government to help those who are left behind. DON'T completely screw up the system and kill the goose by destroying all incentives that make capitalism work.
It's like our health care system. It's got all the bad parts of capitalism and all the bad parts of socialism. Most of Europe has all the bad parts of socialism, and none of the good parts of capitalism. You know who got it right? The Swiss. Their system has the good parts of capitalism and the good parts of socialism. I may ideologically be a libertarian, but I'm also an engineer. I recognize when someone has designed something that works.
"Life's not fair," no shit, Fro.On this I agree with you absolutely so lets stop importing more unskilled and low-skill laborers who make the rich richer (by mowing @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) 's yard for example) and make the poor poorer by competing with the pre-existing Americans who would otherwise take jobs like that.
Well, it could be much more fair and the billionaires would still be billionaires, the millionaires would still be millionaires, and the poor would still be poor.
But the fewer people we have at the ends of the income bell curve, the better.
Again, this presupposes that robber barons were MORE ethical than today's CEO's. Really?I don't see that presupposition. Can you essplain?
It's like our health care system. It's got all the bad parts of capitalism and all the bad parts of socialism.This is something I've been saying for a long time. Our healthcare system largely is the negative portions of capitalism merged with the negative portions of socialism.
On this I agree with you absolutely so lets stop importing more unskilled and low-skill laborers who make the rich richer (by mowing @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) 's yard for example) and make the poor poorer by competing with the pre-existing Americans who would otherwise take jobs like that.We all would like illegal immigration to stop and for a functional legal immigration system to work better.
This is something I've been saying for a long time. Our healthcare system largely is the negative portions of capitalism merged with the negative portions of socialism.I'll betcha a greedy few are behind it and operate with influence to maintain that status quo.
I don't see that presupposition. Can you essplain?Why was income inequality so much lower in the 1960's?
Why was income inequality so much lower in the 1960's?Post 115 - my quote of your post - the bold.
If it is caused by corporate greed then it's absence must be caused by the absence of corporate greed, no?
Europe in my view is mostly a free market with a generous safety net, which is not socialism in itself. They also have quite high taxes on the middle and lower middle.I'll admit to not knowing as much "on the ground" in Europe, and clearly in current parlance invoking Heritage is probably not the best source, but they do happen to have an index based on economic freedom:
https://www1.salary.com/Jeffrey-P-Bezos-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-amazon-com-inc.html#:~:text=Bezos%20made%20%241%2C681%2C840%20in%20total,for%20the%202023%20fiscal%20year.This is the most meaningless post on the website. And you know it is. Yet you persist.
$1.7 million, his salary …..
This is the most meaningless post on the website. And you know it is. Yet you persist.No, it goes to feasibility to what you want to do. If you're trying to squeeze Bezos via income tax, he doesn't have THAT remarkable of an income.
No, it goes to feasibility to what you want to do. If you're trying to squeeze Bezos via income tax, he doesn't have THAT remarkable of an income.
I mean, I know where you're coming from. YOU know he's got the money, so might as well send Rocco and Vinny to shake some quarters loose from him, right?
But as always, it's a lot more complicated. Wealth taxes have been tried in a lot of places, and generally backfire. Income taxes won't affect him much.
So your solution is "make Bezos pay, dammit!" Well, exactly how are you going to make that happen? Other than just saying "gimme gimme gimme, Jeff!"
No, it goes to feasibility to what you want to do. If you're trying to squeeze Bezos via income tax, he doesn't have THAT remarkable of an income.Ya left out Dutch and Bruno he's a big fish you know - one for each limb
I mean, I know where you're coming from. YOU know he's got the money, so might as well send Rocco and Vinny to shake some quarters loose from him, right?
I'm not down on capitalism, I was just copying the phrase you used. Capitalism is great. But like a few bad apples ruining things for the rest of us (PSA checkpoints, women not going out alone at night, no booze on Sundays (wait, that's a ton of bad apples (j/k)), I think those who are driven towards unlimited growth/wealth/power/influence largely ruin capitalism.His take home is $1.7 million. So 1% sees paltry to me.
There is a mighty, mighty chasm between having a few trillionaires and 30% of the populace being poor AND any sort of idealized version of socialism.
Hell, maybe the same type of person that easily ruins socialism is the one trying his best to ruin capitalism, idk.
All I'm honestly advocating for here is some skinning off the top to give to the connected bottom.
Amazon is the perfect example. Does anyone here have a problem with something like 1% of Bezos' take-home going towards simply improving the conditions for the warehouse workers? Is that such a radical idea?
Well I'm sure this will fix it...lol. I have been reading a lot about layoffs, staff reductions and reduced hours due to this.
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/politics/prop-32-california-minimum-wage-increase/509-93f856e6-a4b6-4857-baf6-ee01e27fd96e
His take home is $1.7 million. So 1% sees paltry to me.You are incorrigible.
lol. I have been reading a lot about layoffs, staff reductions and reduced hours due to this.If it doesn't pass, you'll have employed homeless people.
You are incorrigible.Explain my error. You can’t.
This is a lot like blaming corporate greed for inflation. Ok, were corporations NOT greedy for the past 35 years of low inflation.Congress has been handing the Defense industry BILLIONS & BILLIONS and we're actually less safe.Before the bitch croaked last year her handlers propped up Dian Finestein before the house appropriations committee. As they wheeled her in she sat there and babbled she'd like to pass the legislation allocating like 718 Billion dollars - congress actually passed a 886 Billion dollar defense bill later. Of course Diane had lots of coin invested there
Politicians focus on them. Biden promises to "make them pay" (which is entirely inaccurate of course). They are an easy target so they are a target politically with nice sounding words that mean squat.No shit, eh?
But the overall concept is so apparently appealing ....
Of course, his tax proposal is on INCOME, not wealth. But it makes for a nice soundbite.There's been talk of taxing unrealized gains.
A ton of folks think billionaires must have a lot of taxable income the government can grab, like Bezos or Elon or whoever else gets in the news and is super wealthy.
It's how things are.
I prefer the terms free markets vs central planning.My issue with these terms regardless of whether you use free markets/central planning, capitalism/socialism, or some other variant is that it creates a false dichotomy.
Does the government give the money back the next year when you have an unrealized loss?If it was treated like Capital Gains/Losses are now you'd get a capped deduction that you could carry forward (or backward) for a set period of time.
My issue with these terms regardless of whether you use free markets/central planning, capitalism/socialism, or some other variant is that it creates a false dichotomy.This is certainly true, but when folks say "capitalism" in a broad sense, I prefer the term "free market economy", in the same broad sense.
I mean, I understand the mechanics of it.Oh, ok. I thought you were asking for an explanation of how it would work mechanically.
I just don't agree that you can treat an unrealized gain the same as a realized gain.
I understand the energy behind the effort, trying to find some way to get the "rich" to pay "their share."
But there are lot of reasons why past attempts like this, simply haven't worked out.
I think we'd see a lot of smaller companies going private. Their value would be impossible to assess.True because when your stock price goes up you are stuck. The value is a known quantity and you HAVE to report it. If the company is private, the value is an estimate.
I don't know why everyone is focusing on Bezos. He's not even the CEO any more. Not for the last 3 years.Just a figurehead everyone knows as an example. This is an instance where I don't take the time to type out that he's not the CEO anymore and blah blah blah.
If it was treated like Capital Gains/Losses are now you'd get a capped deduction that you could carry forward (or backward) for a set period of time.This is how I have been doing it for years.
Exapmle (ignoring @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) 's $10M floor):
You have $150k in unrealized capital gain in 2023 that you have to pay tax on.
You have a $250k unrealized capital loss in 2024. You can:
- Carry $175k back to 2023 and file an amended 2023 return with $25k in unrealized LOSS instead of $150k in unrealized gain, then
- Take a $25k deduction in 2024. You have now used up $200k of your $250k loss and you continue to carry it forward to either offset gains or take a $25k/year deduction.
- This seems pretty simple if your assets are publicly traded stocks and it is. In that case you just add up shares, multiply by price and viola, value. It is SUBSTANTIALLY more complicated if you own a business or land or mineral rights or patents or basically anything that isn't publicly traded. Then you have to come up with valuations and those are inherently subjective.
Yeah, and then let's say, for example, that you're a real estate mogul. Would you not be incentivized to value your property at a certain [low] level for the tax man, but then perhaps value it at higher levels if you're trying to use it as collateral for loans or something? It's all subjective valuation until it is sold, right?Speaking as a banker- any real estate used as collateral and the loan will be evaluated by the bank. Not the owner.
Not that anyone would do such a thing, of course. That would be fraud.
Yeah, and then let's say, for example, that you're a real estate mogul. Would you not be incentivized to value your property at a certain [low] level for the tax man, but then perhaps value it at higher levels if you're trying to use it as collateral for loans or something? It's all subjective valuation until it is sold, right?Oh please, it isn't "fraud" it is puffing.
Not that anyone would do such a thing, of course. That would be fraud.
Speaking as a banker- any real estate used as collateral and the loan will be evaluated by the bank. Not the owner.Banks aren't trusting the owner's estimated value anyway.
Any rule you put in would be worked around and massaged and become irrelevant because these people can buy lawyers and accountants that find and invent loopholes.Billionaires don't really need to "invent" loopholes. They have very legal obvious means around paying income taxes. Corporations can get rather creative.
I got out of the market when Biden was elected and will return if Trump is elected.You must be really disappointed in your returns. At the 42-month of these administrations, S&P up:
Consumer credit portfolios are deteriorating moderately quickly.Bingo.
This based on data I see in banking circles. But it is public data.
Personally, I think it is a mistake to correlate an improvement in the stock market to confidence in the economy.
It may have more to do with hints that the Fed will lower the rates once before the end of the year
It may also be related to people sensing a trump victory in November
I just noted that the stock market likes the economy, which won't be the case if the economy is currently in dire circumstances. I agree the very recent moves are prompted by expected Fed actions.Note that the value of market indices can also be a product of inflation... The world's governments flooded everyone with fiscal stimulus. Some of that money caused the price of goods to rise. Some of that money caused housing prices to rise. Some of that money caused the price of the DJIA or Nasdaq indices to rise.
Note that the value of market indices can also be a product of inflation... The world's governments flooded everyone with fiscal stimulus. Some of that money caused the price of goods to rise. Some of that money caused housing prices to rise. Some of that money caused the price of the DJIA or Nasdaq indices to rise.Ed Zackery
It's more money, worth less in real terms, chasing a fixed number of goods.
So while some of those stock market gains might be "real", some may also be distortions based on the inflation.
Staple foods are up significantly from 4 years ago, some of them over 100%. Prescription drug prices are up as much as an average of 15% during the same time span. For the top half that just means switching the vacation plans from Europe to Florida. For the bottom half that means choosing between dinner and medicine.Thank you.
These are not metrics of a strong economy.
For the top half that just means switching the vacation plans from Europe to Florida. For the bottom half that means choosing between dinner and medicine.I did pretty well on Cedar Fair in the last recession. For those unaware, Cedar Fair was an Amusement Park operator who initially owned Cedar Point (Big Amusement Park in Sandusky, OH) then acquired a bunch more and more recently merged with Six Flags.
I did pretty well on Cedar Fair in the last recession. For those unaware, Cedar Fair was an Amusement Park operator who initially owned Cedar Point (Big Amusement Park in Sandusky, OH) then acquired a bunch more and more recently merged with Six Flags.
Anyway, when the recession tanked their Stock* plummeted because a lot of investors thought their offering was a luxury good that would take a big hit in the recession. I assumed roughly what you said:Sure, some people who planned pre-recession to go to Cedar Point will not be able to due to the recession but at the same time, some people who planned pre-recession to go to Disney will dial back their plans and go to Cedar Point instead.
- Paris becomes Disney
- Disney becomes Cedar Point
- Cedar Point becomes a backyard water sprinkler.
*Cedar Fair wasn't technically stock, they were a partnership so you bought shares of the partnership not shares of stock.
Residential pool builders absolutely cleaned up during the pandemic. What do you do when you have discretionary income and either aren't allowed to go anywhere, or nowhere you'd want to go, is actually open and operating?RV and boats too.
If you gotta stay home, do it in style.
RV and boats too.Yeah I bought our RV in 2018 for $24,000. Our dealer was calling me back in 2020 and offering $28,000 or more.
Residential pool builders absolutely cleaned up during the pandemic. What do you do when you have discretionary income and either aren't allowed to go anywhere, or nowhere you'd want to go, is actually open and operating?
If you gotta stay home, do it in style.
RV and boats too.Hardware too and I totally missed all of those.
golf coursesYep. Not only did COVID bring a lot of new people into the game because it was one of the few things you could do, it brought a lot of people (like me) back to the game that had been gone a while.
my muni course had it's best year ever financiallyPrices have been going up around here. Part of it IMHO is just California. Everything's going up.
which was great because then prices didn't go up this spring or last spring
(https://i.imgur.com/giu1rSd.png)Not too bad.
If unemployment were the only metric for the economy, we'd be doing okay.And credit usage. And savings levels. And credit performance. And business investment. And consumer spending. And consumer confidence.
Curse you pesky inflation!
Reported inflation NOW is in pretty good shape also. It's the price jump in the past that still hurts. And that won't change.Yes, of course. This is the point several of us have been making for the past dozen pages or so.
Reported inflation NOW is in pretty good shape also. It's the price jump in the past that still hurts. And that won't change.Income is kind of the thing though isn't it?
Nearly all the reported economic metrics look solid, UE, current inflation, GDP growth, not so great is median real HH income growth. Folks have forgotten what inflation was liked in the early Reagan years.
And credit usage. And savings levels. And credit performance. And business investment. And consumer spending. And consumer confidence.Yep.
I could go on.
the basic trends are not good.
It seems apparent a lot of Americans think the economy is in bad shape. No doubt their personal situation influences this more than reported data, and their political leanings will also influence this. I was curious how folks here view it, most think "OK shape with worrisome signs".This is constant - doom & gloom - woe is me
And credit usage. And savings levels. And credit performance. And business investment. And consumer spending. And consumer confidence.Couldn’t agree with this more. I don’t think most people grasp the reality of the underlying giant red flags of the mess to come. Jobs reports consistently revised downward the following months, with bulk of the jobs coming in healthcare and government jobs. insurance costs skyrocketing because of the lag at properly assessing inflation, avg auto loan up over $700, property taxes escalating in so many places.
I could go on.
the basic trends are not good.
Intel share plunge drags down global chip stocks from TSMC to Samsung (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/02/intel-share-plunge-drags-down-global-chip-stocks-from-tsmc-to-samsung.html)
Layoffs? Who could have foreseen this???
My IRA topped a mark, a round number, I never thought I would see just last week, and I mentioned to the wife I should sell it all and put the money into CDs and be done with it. Of course, I didn't.It's ok CD. I'm sure you're good with $999,999,999. Don't need the B in the number to survive.
It's ok CD. I'm sure you're good with $999,999,999. Don't need the B in the number to survive.Tres Commas
my prior employer had a pension (which i did fully vest in before we were spun off) it does have modest adjustments, i basically look at it as a funding source for my future utility bills and other overhead.
Couldn’t agree with this more. I don’t think most people grasp the reality of the underlying giant red flags of the mess to come. Jobs reports consistently revised downward the following months, with bulk of the jobs coming in healthcare and government jobs. insurance costs skyrocketing because of the lag at properly assessing inflation, avg auto loan up over $700, property taxes escalating in so many places.The credit issue is ominous in several ways;
what has kept everything afloat has been the ease to access credit. Many consumers staying afloat by accessing more and more credit with creditors approving everything under the sun. As the reality starts to hit, companies will tighten budgets, unemployment will rise and credit markets will tighten. Call it gloom and doom. I call it looking at the data and seeing the inevitable on its way.
My IRA topped a mark, a round number, I never thought I would see just last week, and I mentioned to the wife I should sell it all and put the money into CDs and be done with it. Of course, I didn't.One thing your Financial Advisor *SHOULD* tell you is to consider the horizon on your investments.
My wife's pension is the equivalent of having about $2.5 million in a shoebox (today), not gaining any interest and no COLA attached to it. So, I don't really know what it's "worth" in 20 years.Some days I wouldn't wish my headaches on anyone but . . .
The good news is it's fully funded (actually 125 percent) so Baxter Healthcare has done a nice job.
About 3 years after she started, they stopped pensions. Not a lot of people on the program anymore.
The FED really screwed up by holding the rate in its last meeting.I don’t blame them.
I don’t blame them.I agree, of course. Some of the bleeding needs to stop.
you got to pay the piper for what has been going on. You can’t print and spend money forever and not have consequences.
Rental property is a great inflation hedge that you might want to consider. I'll explain the reason:I also look at it as one of the few ways that ordinary people can use other peoples' money (OPM) to build their own wealth.
I also look at it as one of the few ways that ordinary people can use other peoples' money (OPM) to build their own wealth.Exactly!
You need a certain floor to get there, but once you have the foot in the door, you use the bank's money to buy the property and then use your tenant's money to pay off the mortgage. Even if you're only break-even from an annual cash flow perspective, you're the one who ends up with the expensive asset (property) at the end of the process. Even if you start out mildly below break-even, rising rents in most places will ensure that after a few short years, you're break even or even cash flow positive. As long as you have the cushion to cover it, it's still fine to start below break even.
They say that real estate is a poor asset compared to inflation in general. However, if you're using OPM to buy it, that's not a bad thing. You can use OPM to buy real estate. You can't [easily] use OPM to invest in the stock market.
Best decision we ever made was to keep out starter house and use it as a rental, when we bought our new house, 12 years ago.It is a pretty solid decision without inflation. Inflation makes it ingenious.
I'll be honest we were stretched thin for a few years and really could have used cash from the sale to cover the new house, but we scrapped through it, and now 12 years later it's not even a thing.
I don't want the landlord headaches at this point in my life.I can understand that. I started my comment on it by saying that some days I wouldn't wish my headaches on anyone.
I'm lucky enough that after we partnered up with my FIL on some other properties, he now manages all of them. The first few years of managing our own rental though, weren't a lot of fun, no doubt.The strange thing about the rental business is that the business/profitability ratio are inverted.
The strange thing about the rental business is that the business/profitability ratio are inverted.So true.
In most businesses the busier you are the more money you are making. In the rental business when I'm busy I'm losing money. When I'm not busy, I'm making money.
This month I'm losing money and busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.
The Fed is trying to 'fight a ghost' as recession fears mount, investor says (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-fed-is-trying-to-fight-a-ghost-as-recession-fears-mount-investor-says/ar-AA1ofWpu?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=7185d88ec509482bac0e2b9fa98f68d7&ei=18)I think it's dangerous to think of this as a "ghost." The implication is that it's irrational, that there's actually no basis for an expectation of recession, but that's just not true at all.
I don't want the landlord headaches at this point in my life.Hire a management company which a ceiling for spending on the unit and let them handle the regular headaches. Worth the relatively low cost.
Buy low, sell high.It's easier to be wrong twice than it is to be right twice.
It's easier to be wrong twice than it is to be right twice.The lessons of marriage, amirite?
Hire a management company which a ceiling for spending on the unit and let them handle the regular headaches. Worth the relatively low cost.When I was growing up we were the management company. My dad took care of a few of his own and a LOT for other people. Over time he was able to acquire more and more of his own. I started helping almost before I could talk. Dad would be under a sink or something working on something and he'd say "Medinabuckeye1, bring me a basin wrench". So I guess the first thing I learned was tool identification.
I started helping almost before I could talk. Dad would be under a sink or something working on something and he'd say "Medinabuckeye1, bring me a basin wrench". "Medinabuckeye1, bring me a Budweiser"FIFY - forgot the important part
It's easier to be wrong twice than it is to be right twice.
The lessons of marriage, amirite?Thought my oldest Brother was the only one nuts enough to get married 4X. Actually 5X but married number 3 twice
When I was growing up we were the management company. My dad took care of a few of his own and a LOT for other people. Over time he was able to acquire more and more of his own. I started helping almost before I could talk. Dad would be under a sink or something working on something and he'd say "Medinabuckeye1, bring me a basin wrench". So I guess the first thing I learned was tool identification.And yet you turned down a promising career in urology
I'm actually surprised this type of down - up - down fluctuation doesn't happen MUCH more oftenThe market is so huge it's very difficult to influence a major part of it in this way. One factor is all the algorithms "traders" use that fire buys and sells in microseconds. This is one reason the market can react as it did the past couple of days, major downs usually, not so often ups without news. There supposedly are circuit breakers now after the day crash of 1987.
Volume, and turnover rates. You might be making 0.5% every week. It adds up.They don't because all those professionals are up against . . .
The odd thing, to me, is that managed funds over time do worse than market averages with very very few exceptions. Some do well in a year or three and then track back to average. This is why ETFs have become so popular, along with low fees. You'd think a managed fund by "professionals" would do better, but largely they do not.
We don't pay managers of elite sports teams to be average for very long, maybe the White Sox might.The White Sox actually have a paid general manager, but I don't know why. They could have paid me $75k and I would gladly outperform him due to my love and affection for the culture of the White Sox, and would have done much better. I knew coming into this season that the new GM hadn't done a thing.
I continue to read about layoffs every day, in so many industries.IMHO, this is the key wildcard in the POTUS election this fall.
Layoffs coming to Stellantis Warren plant as Ram 1500 Classic production ends (detroitnews.com) (https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/chrysler/2024/08/09/layoffs-stellantis-warren-ram-1500-classic-production-ends/74737898007/)
Tech giants, media companies downsizing their workforces (businessreport.com) (https://www.businessreport.com/article/tech-giants-media-companies-downsizing-their-workforces)
As per usual in politics, the key issue is perception not reality. Does the electorate perceive that we are entering a recession or will they perceive that we are in a recession when they vote?does the electorate ever deviate from the people's vote?
I personally have not seen a 100% price increase in any food items. I'm going by the government inflation reports.
Yeah I have no idea where CD is shopping but I sure wish I had access to it here.CD is one of the beautiful people
My last gas fillup was $2.85 here, at Costco. It's around $3.30 elsewhere at regular stations, about the same price as in 1980 adjusted for inflation.That will save you a ton of money. Sedona is not cheap by any stretch. Breakfast out can be a $50 ordeal, depending on where you go.
I mentioned the Totchos next door have gone from $10 to $15, not $20 (yet). Our Kroger technically is not in midtown. We're going to shop at a Safeway in Sedona, I'll get a brief peak at what prices are there. We usually get stuff for breakfast and lunch and then fine out. I might cook steaks at the resort, we'll see. They have grills about.
We have a small kitchen in the unit.
Prices are absolutely sick here.WTF??
$8.99/pound for boneless chicken breast. Just bought some yesterday.
4 years ago, wings were $2.99/pound. Now they are $5.99. Sometimes $4.99 if on sale, but you have to buy 3 pounds.
WTF??Chicken wing prices are highly volatile. Current price at my local grocer is $3.63/ lb and that's for the cheapest brand, the store's entry-level own-brand. Average national price was around $1.69/lb in 2019 so that's around 114% inflation.
I just looked in my freezer. Boneless skinless breast $2.99/lb. Wings $2.49/lb.
I don't know where you're shopping, but you're getting screwed.
WTF??Look on a map to see where we are in the country. I'll help.
I just looked in my freezer. Boneless skinless breast $2.99/lb. Wings $2.49/lb.
I don't know where you're shopping, but you're getting screwed.
Chicken wing prices are highly volatile. Current price at my local grocer is $3.63/ lb and that's for the cheapest brand, the store's entry-level own-brand. Average national price was around $1.69/lb in 2019 so that's around 114% inflation.I wonder if wings actually get more expensive when football season rolls around?
HOWEVER
It wasn't so long before that, that wings were $.79 or $.89 per lb.
The ever-increasing popularity of chicken wings is not the fault of the president, I can't blame Sleepy Joe for the law of supply and demand. :)
Look on a map to see where we are in the country. I'll help.I know where live. But $8.99/lb for boneless skinless chicken breast seems like the kind of thing you'd find here, at Gelson's Market (upscale compared to Whole Foods), in Newport Beach. And even then only for organic.
(https://i.imgur.com/utwhRIe.png)
2019 price for eggs at my local grocery store, was around $1.10/dozen. Current price is $2.77/dozen. These aren't fancy organics or anything, they're the base for large Grade A in the cheapest version of the store's own-brands. Basically, what the poor people (and me) buy for basic protein needs.According to this (https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/egg-prices-adjusted-for-inflation/), using 2019 is a bit of cherry-picking... 2019 was the lowest price for a dozen eggs since 2006, at $1.40/dozen. 2018 was $1.76, and back in 2015 it was as high as $2.47.
154% increase.
According to this (https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/egg-prices-adjusted-for-inflation/), using 2019 is a bit of cherry-picking... 2019 was the lowest price for a dozen eggs since 2006, at $1.40/dozen. 2018 was $1.76, and back in 2015 it was as high as $2.47.I think its more then inflation creating price increases
National price is currently $2.71, suggesting NEARLY 100% price inflation (94%), but only if you use a statistically very cheap year for eggs. If you started with 2018 it'd be 54% and if you used 2020 it'd be 79%.
Also note that using a single commodity is difficult, because it may reflect factors beyond simple inflation. For example, the rise of bird flu (https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/spending/articles/why-are-eggs-so-expensive-right-now) and the rising costs to mitigate it.
I know where live. But $8.99/lb for boneless skinless chicken breast seems like the kind of thing you'd find here, at Gelson's Market (upscale compared to Whole Foods), in Newport Beach. And even then only for organic.Trucking. Loads come down here from all over the country, and you can't get much further South than we are. I mean, when you get to Florida, you're still another 6 hours from here.
What's up with food prices in Florida??
Costco is 45-60 minutes depending on traffic. We are supposed to get one in the next five years.Ditto all of that here as well and how I feel about them. Publix is awesome. Clean, super well stocked, great meat, fish and produce. You can’t work there unless you know about good customer service. But…. High priced on many things.
We have BJ's and Sams closer, but I'm not a fan of either.
We have Publix, Aldi, Walmart and Winn Dixie close. Meh on the latter three, except for some items at Aldi can be decent. And we have a place called Farmer Joe's, which is more $ than Publix.
According to this (https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/egg-prices-adjusted-for-inflation/), using 2019 is a bit of cherry-picking... 2019 was the lowest price for a dozen eggs since 2006, at $1.40/dozen. 2018 was $1.76, and back in 2015 it was as high as $2.47.
National price is currently $2.71, suggesting NEARLY 100% price inflation (94%), but only if you use a statistically very cheap year for eggs. If you started with 2018 it'd be 54% and if you used 2020 it'd be 79%.
Also note that using a single commodity is difficult, because it may reflect factors beyond simple inflation. For example, the rise of bird flu (https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/spending/articles/why-are-eggs-so-expensive-right-now) and the rising costs to mitigate it.
Ditto all of that here as well and how I feel about them. Publix is awesome. Clean, super well stocked, great meat, fish and produce. You can’t work there unless you know about good customer service. But…. High priced on many things.Do you have Kroger over there? We had Kroger back North in the form of Mariano's. Bob Mariano left Roundy's and started his own store, taking many of the former Dominick's locations. Those stores were great and forced others to step up their game. The Kroger came in and bought all of the Mariano's stores. They didn't mess them up, which was good.
Winn Dixie ok for generic things ( coffee, cereal, noodles, etc) and often less expensive, but not nearly as clean and organized, and the employees often less than friendly.
Do you have Kroger over there? We had Kroger back North in the form of Mariano's. Bob Mariano left Roundy's and started his own store, taking many of the former Dominick's locations. Those stores were great and forced others to step up their game. The Kroger came in and bought all of the Mariano's stores. They didn't mess them up, which was good.Same. They have those often.
And yes, Publix is great. Just expensive. I watch for BOGO's and we pretty much only buy that stuff now.
So the price dropped when Trump was president, and increased under Biden. I think you've made the R's point for them. ;)Well, it does get a little bit difficult... We can look at the four years of Trump's presidency, as he came into office in Jan 2017:
Well, it does get a little bit difficult... We can look at the four years of Trump's presidency, as he came into office in Jan 2017:
- 2017: Good job, Donny! You dropped the price of eggs from Obama's last year (1.68) to 1.47. Well done! That's effective leadership!
- 2018: Wait, you rose the price of eggs to 1.74? That's even higher than it was in Obama's last year. What the hell were you thinking? How are families going to deal with your piss-poor leadership?
- 2019: Whew! Down to 1.40! I guess you figured things out, Donny, and we're back to good leadership. Making
AmericaEggs Great Again!- 2020: 1.51?! You let the price of eggs go UP again? Why would you do that? You've had 4 years to learn how to govern, and you're letting the price of eggs rise?! I guess you don't really want to get reelected, do you? You want to blame the Democrats for stealing the election, but maybe you just had a big target on your back from the egg lobby...
Or, maybe, just maybe, we can all agree that the President isn't responsible for the price of eggs :57:
Ditto all of that here as well and how I feel about them. Publix is awesome. Clean, super well stocked, great meat, fish and produce. You can’t work there unless you know about good customer service. But…. High priced on many things.Can't have your Kate and Edith too
Winn Dixie ok for generic things ( coffee, cereal, noodles, etc) and often less expensive, but not nearly as clean and organized, and the employees often less than friendly.
2020 was when Sleepy Joe was elected. Donny's only responsible for the price up to October. :)I agree. It's the economy, stupid. And stupids vote on the status of an economy that the President has terribly little control over.
And I've never asserted that the president influences the price of eggs. I've only suggested that people vote with their wallets and there are many cases, including the price of eggs, where people are worse off financially than they were 4 years ago.
It's true, but there were a lot of unknowns, and the gov't erred on the side of people possibly having too much rather than too little.This false narrative “ Trumps ignorance “ caused deaths has been overwhelmingly proven false. You need to get with the times- that narrative was effective by the Dems and MSM to win the 2020 election.
I tend to give the imperfections of the covid and post-covid decision-making a pass, as it was unprecedented for all involved.
No, that does not include Trump poo-pooing it, suggesting it would just "go away." His ignorance caused a lot of deaths.
But Fauci should have specified wanting masks for front-line workers. You have to trust the masses there with transparency, even though the masses are shaved apes and would have horded masks regardless.
The CDC should have been telling the gov't what to do and not the other way around.
I understand if we went a little overboard with the mask mandates and school closures, but closing outdoor spaces like beaches and parks was asinine and ignorant.
Shit, to this day, I see people driving alone in a car with a mask on. There's too careful, there's ignorant, and then there's stupid.
There is a brand new Costco in North Port.54 minutes away.
25080 Estrada Circle in Punta GordaBurnt Store Village is weird. I would never buy in there.
With a different admin, I do wonder what inflation would’ve looked like. There is basically no way it was going to be anything other than some degree of bad. So the question would be how much would a different admin shave off the high inflation already there.Without the $1.9 trillion 2021 American Rescue Plan potlach and the $1.2 trillion 2022 Inflation Reduction Act is quite likely the inflation would never have happened. VP Harris had the tie breaking votes on both of those bills in the Senate.
Without the $1.9 trillion 2021 American Rescue Plan potlach and the $1.2 trillion 2022 Inflation Reduction Act is quite likely the inflation would never have happened. VP Harris had the tie breaking votes on both of those bills in the Senate.Correct.
Without the $1.9 trillion 2021 American Rescue Plan potlach and the $1.2 trillion 2022 Inflation Reduction Act is quite likely the inflation would never have happened. VP Harris had the tie breaking votes on both of those bills in the Senate.Here's where the question becomes one of imagination, though...
The thing is that legislation was bragged about and pushed hard.Of course. They want the credit for the good it did and not to accept blame for the bad. So they deflect about record profits and say inflation is all the fault of greedy corporations or some claptrap like that. When massive fiscal stimulus caused the inflation, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it.
They own the good and the bad of it.
They just don’t want to “man up” and own it
Without the $1.9 trillion 2021 American Rescue Plan potlach and the $1.2 trillion 2022 Inflation Reduction Act is quite likely the inflation would never have happened. VP Harris had the tie breaking votes on both of those bills in the Senate.We gave away well more than half a trillion in stimulus money and business handouts before that. Plus The supply chain was also all messed up, and the government wasn’t gonna save that.
The War on Immigrants clearly didn't help and clearly contributed to inflation, as well.A focus group of one. What war😂😂😂
A focus group of one. What war😂😂😂Don't live in denial. Obviously, excessive restrictions on labor will increase the costs of goods and services. As we actually saw when plenty of businesses had huge problems in getting and keeping employees in the wake of COVID.
such a ridiculous take.
Don't live in denial. Obviously, excessive restrictions on labor will increase the costs of goods and services. As we actually saw when plenty of businesses had huge problems in getting and keeping employees in the wake of COVID.Better than living in fantasy land.
yes- employers struggled to get employees in the wake of Covid because because of the war on immigrants. ( the war that never happened).Yeah Trump was famous for his welcoming message to immigrants. Might as well go full on delusional.
Yeah Trump was famous for his welcoming message to immigrants. Might as well go full on delusional.Oh, now I see your point. The incredible and painful rise in inflation during the Biden administration caused by his fiscal policy was really the fault of the President before him for talking about wanting legal immigration versus illegally immigration. 😂😂😂😂. You are truly delusional.
Oh, now I see your point. The incredible and painful rise in inflation during the Biden administration caused by his fiscal policy was really the fault of the President before him for talking about wanting legal immigration versus illegally immigration. 😂😂😂😂. You are truly delusional.Let's see.
Let's see.I can’t have a debate with someone who is so separated from the actual facts. You truly are delusional. I can’t even believe you wrote what you just wrote.
- Trump ran on a message of drastically reducing immigration
- Trump claimed he successfully reduced immigration
- After COVID inflation occurred, triggered in part to a lack of labor due to decreased immigration
- Honest Buckeye says "it's everything else! Not that! Not that!"
This is basic economics and can't be escaped by wishing it away. I will say the Dems didn't really do anything to address the issue, and Congress was mostly helpless on the issue despite a clear need, though that is typical of them these days.
I can’t have a debate with someone who is so separated from the actual facts. You truly are delusional. I can’t even believe you wrote what you just wrote.Your entire premise is that there is but one single cause of inflation. Good luck with that.
I’ll just take your word for it. The torrid spending and money printing that went on during the Biden ministration and clearly caused inflation was really really the fault of the person before him. Struggling employment after Covid was because of Donald Trump not because of the government handouts. OK, you win 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Your entire premise is that there is but one single cause of inflation. Good luck with that.If you read up thread, you’ll see the exact opposite is true. Having a deep understanding and economics there are multiple factors involved, which I stated way of thread.
This is basic economics and can't be escaped by wishing it away. I will say the Dems didn't really do anything to address the issue, and Congress was mostly helpless on the issue despite a clear need, though that is typical of them these days.Sam, you're off on this one. While a lack of immigration might lead to wage growth, which might lead to inflation, I don't think that's really the case here. Especially with the very high immigration that we've seen post-Trump.
I think this time y'all are really gonna convince one another!Sorry- I should just resist when somebody who is politically blind post something so ridiculous. You’re right it isn’t even worth my time.
Sorry- I should just resist when somebody who is politically blind post something so ridiculous. You’re right it isn’t even worth my time.Most online political fights are not. But man they get us going.
Sam, you're off on this one. While a lack of immigration might lead to wage growth, which might lead to inflation, I don't think that's really the case here. Especially with the very high immigration that we've seen post-Trump.Well, if you read up thread a little bit, you will see that that is not at all what I am saying.
But the inflation we see is a global phenomenon, not a domestic one. If it was caused by a lack of US immigration, wouldn't all those countries who were flush with workers see their prices be stable? After all, their people weren't trying to immigrate here, right?
The truth (to my basic economics mind) is that massive fiscal stimulus caused a situation where a lot of new dollars were chasing an equivalent--or due to supply chain issues, a smaller--basket of goods and services. It's monetarily-driven.
However, unlike HB I'm not just going to say this is a Biden or Democrat problem. Trump was already starting fiscal stimulus while still in office--likely to try to get people to vote for him. GWB was starting fiscal stimulus when the Great Recession hit, as well as a few times before that.
So I don't think it's partisan. It's what governments do when the excrement impacts the air circulation device.
you fellas are typical political arguersThat’s bull. That is not my position. Read up before you say crap like that.
nothing new here
"It's the other side's fault"
I think this time y'all are really gonna convince one another!Truth finds a way brother. People used to say beans didn't belong in chili, but they are much quieter now.
I blame the egg lobby.I blame eggs themselves. Slackers.
Truth finds a way brother. People used to say beans didn't belong in chili, but they are much quieter now.Negatory there, little brother. That's a nil on the beanos.
Negatory there, little brother. That's a nil on the beanos.Yes grandpa we hear you now let's find you your favorite rocking chair
Sam, you're off on this one. While a lack of immigration might lead to wage growth, which might lead to inflation, I don't think that's really the case here. Especially with the very high immigration that we've seen post-Trump.I mean yes, you can't deny that increasing the money supply is going to raise inflation. But in the same vein that increases in the money supply don't end at the borders, neither does the costs of US goods and services.
But the inflation we see is a global phenomenon, not a domestic one. If it was caused by a lack of US immigration, wouldn't all those countries who were flush with workers see their prices be stable? After all, their people weren't trying to immigrate here, right?
The truth (to my basic economics mind) is that massive fiscal stimulus caused a situation where a lot of new dollars were chasing an equivalent--or due to supply chain issues, a smaller--basket of goods and services. It's monetarily-driven.
However, unlike HB I'm not just going to say this is a Biden or Democrat problem. Trump was already starting fiscal stimulus while still in office--likely to try to get people to vote for him. GWB was starting fiscal stimulus when the Great Recession hit, as well as a few times before that.
So I don't think it's partisan. It's what governments do when the excrement impacts the air circulation device.
Yes grandpa we hear you now let's find you your favorite rocking chairLulzno
That increase in price hit everywhere, but the one people complain about the most is the cost of groceries and food. These depend on a lot of "unskilled" labor, the kind easily supplied by immigration, and the kind that dried up in the face of very low levels of immigration. It wouldn't be any surprise to see that hypothetical and conclude crackdowns on immigration contributed to inflation.Food prices are also HIGHLY correlated to shipping and fertilizer costs... Guess what happened to those?
It's also no surprise that the decrease in inflation has been largely helped by an increase in immigrants working.Any other rare gems you'd like to mine for the congregation??? Almost any swinging Richard would call false at that economic indicator.
Immigrants brought the bird fluAnd COVID.
Negatory there, little brother. That's a nil on the beanos.Ya well even briskett/Gr Beef has gone thru the roof gonna be more meatless meals.Brutha can you spare a lonestar
Ya well even briskett/Gr Beef has gone thru the roof gonna be more meatless meals.Brutha can you spare a lonestarOh I wouldn't ever deny a poor, sad soul a bowl of bean soup. Bean soup can be delicious.
Back on topic, just saw this:
Some of you may or may not know but I’ve been an appraiser for the Medina County Sheriff 27 years. Didn't know that
That is local, second hand, and anecdotal but to me it is just another indicator pointing a bad way. Kind a felt/figured that
Truth finds a way brother. People used to say beans didn't belong in chili, but they are much quieter now.Bullshit.
I'd rather argue over chili and bean soup than.......... the unspeakableI'm always all ears when it comes to what you can add to chili starter base (Texas chili) to make it good
I'd rather argue over chili and bean soup than.......... the unspeakablepeople who think a steak should be cooked well done?
I'm seeing that ICs and CPUs will be headed into shortage and allocation by Q2 of next year. That means price increases and longer lead times on anything and everything that uses them-- computers, consumer electronics, cars, etc.Yep. RAM and storage devices as well.
Yep. RAM and storage devices as well.maybe we will start making them in the US
maybe we will start making them in the USWe already do. Micron makes a lot of DRAM here in the states, and they're currently planning large additions to their US-based manufacturing.
Kenji Lopez-Alt has all sorts of additions - chocolate, star anise, stuff like that. I haven't tried that, but the trifecta of marmite, soy sauce, and anchovies works. Anchovies are an underrated ingredient in all sorts of things.I've heard of folks putting some chocolate in chili
. Anchovies are an underrated ingredient in all sorts of things.Pasta burro e alici. Heavenly.
I've heard of folks putting some chocolate in chiliI've taken to putting them in all sorts of things - meatballs are especially good. Marmite I'm not sure I've tasted as much but I do add it sometimes. Getting the lid off the jar is a bitch though
not Star anise, marmite, soy sauce, or anchovies
I've heard of folks putting some chocolate in chiliTangential nice business story.
not Star anise, marmite, soy sauce, or anchovies
Tangential nice business story.Tejas Chocolate and BBQ, in Tomball, TX, outside of Houston.
There was a chocolate maker in Texas that was falling on hard times a few years back. they realized that some of their techniques and equipments could be adapted for barbecue.
They ended up being ranked among the best BBQ in the state one year, and still sell upscale chocolate on the side.
Tejas Chocolate and BBQ, in Tomball, TX, outside of Houston.Yes! I went on a work trip a few years back. Was pleased.
I've had it, it's legit.
https://www.tejaschocolate.com/
that's the only reason I've been to HoustonNASA is pretty cool.
that's the only reason I've been to Houstonhttps://youtu.be/EuvlVo1QdLU?si=U2zYYCsBVT5z2ym7
https://youtu.be/EuvlVo1QdLU?si=U2zYYCsBVT5z2ym7great song, great album
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/15/retail-sales-july-2024-.htmlHow much of that went onto credit cards...?
I'm anticipating a slide into mild recession starting early next year and peaking about a year later. This will happen regardless of which party wins the presidential election.Probably. The different approaches impacted how we got here, and most certainly how we handle it when it happens- how quickly it is corrected.
bought gasoline today for $2.85/gallonWe filled up at Costco for $3.06, up a bit from last time. Regular stations are around $3.50.
That's my point, I don't think US production would be any higher under Trump. Other factors dominate.Its my understanding Biden completely closed off Alaska's oil reserves so that might be different under Trump
plenty of wells sitting idle in North DakotaBut that would raise gas prices.
plenty of wells idle all over the country because the price is down
perhaps a tariff on oil imports would be useful
I think one can retire fairly comfortably with a net worth of $2.5 million IFF one is 65 or so.I'd think so. Especially given that a lot of people with that net worth has probably spent enough years at an income level where they're maxing out SS contributions, and thus will get the max benefit.
$2.5M at 65 is one thing.Yeah, but $2.5M at 50 means it's going to be growing significantly for the next 15 years until "normal" retirement age, so if you've got a job and $2.5M net worth at 50, you're well on your way to wealthy IMHO.
At 50 it means you're probably still a working stiff.
At 50 it means you're probably still a working stiff.Edit To Add: Especially if you have two high school kids about to enter college... :'(
Yeah, but $2.5M at 50 means it's going to be growing significantly for the next 15 years until "normal" retirement age, so if you've got a job and $2.5M net worth at 50, you're well on your way to wealthy IMHO.
How much does insurance cost once you retire?My cost is unusually low, $134 a month for some Medicare Plus kind of policy, from work (it covers us both). They take something out of my SS for Medicare, a few hundred, maybe $170.
$2.5M at 65 is one thing.Paying $1300 a month for Health, dental and eye insurance for the wife and I until next year when I turn 65 and am elligible for Medicare. Wife is only 60 so 5 more years of probably a little more than half that.
At 50 it means you're probably still a working stiff.
How much does insurance cost once you retire?
My cost is unusually low, $134 a month for some Medicare Plus kind of policy, from work (it covers us both). They take something out of my SS for Medicare, a few hundred, maybe $170.I can relate. I wouldn't consider myself wealthy but I am comfortable. I can also say I can't imagine that I would see a bill that stresses me out. If we want to go out we go out. If we see something we want we buy it. Our major expense is also our cruises. we have taken 4 cruises this years and 1 other trip and have 1 more cruise this year and 6 cruises scheduled for next year. However we planned our retirement with 2 years of extensive traveling and then will back down to a couple of trips a year after that. We could not keep up the pace of travel for the rest of our lives but wanted to see the things and do the things we wanted while we are able. Seen too many people wait and then die or become unhealthy and can't do things.
My coverage seems to be solid though I've been healthy enough not to use it much. My wife uses it more and she says it's good coverage.
I personally feel "comfortable", as "we" like to say. I noted my IRA crested a number I never thought I'd see and then the "Kamala Crash" happened, and I pulled some out to pay bills, and now it crested that figure again today.
For me, being "comfortable" means I'm not going to see a bill that stresses me and we can do "stuff" we want to do without worrying, but it is far short of paying for Delta One tickets etc. I'll stay in Comfort seats. Our cruises take a chunk, but manageable.
How Much You Need To Be in the Top 5% in Every State (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/how-much-you-need-to-be-in-the-top-5-in-every-state/ss-AAVm7Bl?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=ca3549649d7d4bd8871728991b8ac3a1&ei=17)That is income not net worth. As far as income I am on the low end but most would consider me well off. Income is a nice measure but it far from tells the whole story.
That is income not net worth. As far as income I am on the low end but most would consider me well off. Income is a nice measure but it far from tells the whole story.Yep, I'm aware of what it was.
One factor in travel is aging. If you wait too late, it's too late. Travel can be stressful obviously. I can see a time when I think "I'm done, it's too much travail for me."Yeah, that's one reason we're doing Ireland soon. My MIL and wife's stepdad have never been out of the country, and they're 70+. They're currently in good health, but time is ticking. We don't think they'd take a trip like this alone, and my wife has wanted to go to Ireland for a LONG time.
Yeah, that's one reason we're doing Ireland soon. My MIL and wife's stepdad have never been out of the country, and they're 70+. They're currently in good health, but time is ticking. We don't think they'd take a trip like this alone, and my wife has wanted to go to Ireland for a LONG time.Where in Ireland?
So we're going now because it essentially takes away any excuse they'd have for not taking the trip, since I'll be there as the trip "chaperone" and take the stress out lol. A lot of trust they're putting in me :57:
Where in Ireland?Quick side jaunt to Cliffs of Moher, couple days around Killarney, and then a few days in Dublin.
Quick side jaunt to Cliffs of Moher, couple days around Killarney, and then a few days in Dublin.That's cool. When I was in law school I studied abroad in Oxford, but spent two weeks in Ireland before hand. I enjoyed the random walks around the countryside. Finding thousand year old buildings just hanging out on a path was special.
We've traveled quite a bit obviously. With the economy obviously doing GREAT with record stock market levels, I'm eager to spend it while I can.We have a 36 day in April/May next year going across the altantic starting in San Juan, Hitting Islands along the way to Portugal and then covering the mediterrean Spain, France, Italy, down to Egypt and finish in Istanbul. 26 stops along the way. The rest are 7 to 10 day trips. Mexican riveria, western Carribbean, Hawaii, New England/Canada coast.
I'm being a bit facetious.
Our big trip is a 30 day cruise in Asia in March. And Istanbul is coming up in a few weeks.
Oh, and take it to the Travel Unimpressions Thread!Never was a great fan of Guiness until I went to the Guiness Warehouse in Dublin. Turns out it make a big difference where and how it is served. Drank it all through Ireland and England.
So, if EVs grow to say 10 million, that would be another 150,000 BPD off the gasoline market. That starts to be a dent.
There are an estimated 3.3 million electric vehicles on U.S. roads, more than twice as many as in 2021. More EVs have helped keep demand for gasoline in check, although Kloza notes that the effect is relatively modest, with every million EVs sold reducing demand by about 22,000 barrels a day.
So, if EVs grow to say 10 million, that would be another 150,000 BPD off the gasoline market. That starts to be a dent.maybe by 2030
maybe by 2030Current projections would say we'll hit 10M well before that. Over 1M were sold in 2023, so even with flat sales volume from 2024->2030 we'd basically be there.
The S&P bounce back has been nice.(https://i.imgur.com/avfJZeq.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/avfJZeq.jpeg)The universe aligned so that I had sold a bunch of company stock a few weeks earlier and was able to buy that dip in a solid way.
Never was a great fan of Guiness until I went to the Guiness Warehouse in Dublin. Turns out it make a big difference where and how it is served. Drank it all through Ireland and England.Jeebis the place on the corner had it on Draught prolly will again,ya know March the 17th - sleep the 18th that sort of thing. Smooth going one of my top 10 you get a sweet, toasty, nutty,smoky aroma,with hints of caramel/chocolate. The hops are more resin like.
(https://i.imgur.com/3bsRFDJ.png)Well the defenders of the Alamo,Davey Crockett was from Tennessee,Jim Bowie was from Kentucky,W.B. Travis from S.Carolina. Capt John Forsyth was from NY, James Fannin was from Georgia - he survived the battle but was shot by a firing squad. Gordon C. Jennings was the oldest defender of The Alamo he was from Connecticut.
Did they have NIL going back then?
Did they have NIL going back then?