Sign up  |  Log in

Thoughts on State of the Union

In general, I am not too sympathetic towards increasing benefits levels, since it seems that the average American lives really well nowadays - certainly better than a person in most other countries. For instance, the average home size in the US is now 2600 sf and the average car is over $36k. Personally, I have never lived in a 2600 sf house or bought a $36k car. Should I subsidize people in retirement if they made these spending decisions rather than save and invest their money?

Regarding generational subsidy (young people pay old people) - it’s completely reasonable if everyone can expect the same benefits when it’s their turn. However, as Nery stated, the equation starts to slip with actuarial changes. This creates a long term need for reform, but unfortunately, not the political will to change anything. Once again, Nery shows his true wisdom and I wouldn’t be surprised if he is actually Jeff Gundlach himself!

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

ohai wrote:

Personally, I have never lived in a 2600 sf house or bought a $36k car. Should I subsidize people in retirement if they made these spending decisions rather than save and invest their money?

IIRC, you have lived your whole life in either SF or NYC.  In both of those places, a car is unnecessary (and possibly even a PITA), and a 2600 sf house would cost a fortune, in even Ohai’s terms.  

If you lived in BFE, a 2600 square foot house and a $36k car are pretty average.  My house is over 3,000 square feet and it’s nowhere close to being an “extravagance”.  

82 > 87
Simple math.

NO GREENMAN WE DONT WANT TO SUBSIDIZE YOUR MCMANSION LIFE!

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

I don’t think Greenman’s example changes the argument, since most Americans just buy whatever they can get approved for. Even if housing is cheaper in some places, people who live there still tend to live on their income margin and borrow significantly to subsidize their lifestyles. If people in 3000 sf houses downgraded to 2000 sf, their future finances would still improve.

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

its actaully kidn of itneresting. rent in la has been moving up. but imo, this is occuring because of 2 reasons. 1 ultra low employment rate. and 2 they keep raising minimum wages. so now even ghetto ass areas in the inner city with all the filth are charging the same rates as very nice suburbian areas with good schools. back then there was a huge difference now, they are practically the same. still a lot of homeless people now though. i wonder what will happen when the economy slows down. 

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Kiplinger wrote:

but that happens when scientists create the elixir of youth. do we ban it, perhaps the fear of death is what motivates humans to push boundaries  and “move forward”? or will the some cultures just let whoever can afford it buy it because Capitalism? then only the rich become immortal and the poor will still die? but then the poor people will start a war and presumably the tech makes rich people immortal not indestructible, ah, the questions of science, science and progress…

Your question has been answered - see Altered Carbon on Netflix…

Hey Hamilton, have a holly jolly Christmas.

In addition, California’s so called “housing crisis” comes mostly from lack of supply, from building codes, lack of space, and other complementary reasons. Because of this, rents might not be very elastic in the event of a downturn. This is particularly problematic in LA, where rents are a very high percentage of income (I think it’s the number 1 or number 2 most expensive place relative to local incomes). As a result of all this, a lot of people will find that they are displaced in a downturn. In the long term, we should see a continued migration to less expensive areas, but in the short term, I don’t know what people will do. LA is for successful people only!

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

yep. spot on. over here. everyone knows the biggest problem are the nimbys. (not in my neighborhood). essentially nimbys do not want to rezone single family dwelling to multi units for various reasons, traffic, congestion, charge higher rent, or they just like homeless people, but anyways, they usually use a blanket excuse of preserving neighborhood culture or something environmental to prevent any new housing.

right now, if say a person wanted to create a second story or create an additional unit, you literally have to get a signature from the entire street. anyways a new law was recently passed that was supposed to allow people statewide to create additional units out of garages or backhouses etc without the requirements imposed by local government. they also tried to get people to transform areas near mass transit to build large complexes, but this law failed. something called sb 50.

my buddy did a work around. he got elected councilman.  and he bought up property. then rezoned them to multi residentials. then he created a construction company that built the housing.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Developing anything in So Cal is an f’ing nightmare.it is basically idiocracy. it is the perfect storm of liberal retardedness all conspiring to make everything miserable for everybody in every way imaginable.

Gautama values truth above all else. 

namaste

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.