|
How long before some developer throws enough money at the city/state/feds to redevelop Alcatraz into some kind of hyperluxury enclave?
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
So the unemployment numbers just jumped back up to basically where we were in January because March and April job gains were drastically reduced down while May was drastically below expectations as well, but that's apparently no big deal according to "experts". So go shopping everyone! Crashrat fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
One jobs report really isn't a big deal and that article is more reasonable than you make it sound, even if it's pretty fluffy and not saying much. There's an actual, real downward trend in the labor market (at least as "real" as any trend over a short period of time can be, given that BLS employment data collection is really inexact), but that doesn't mean the economy is collapsing. We're 7ish years into a recovery, so at this point anyone who thinks things aren't going to slow down and eventually reverse is just being unrealistic and ignoring a hundred years of economic history. That still doesn't mean that one bad jobs report points to a recession three months from now or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:One jobs report really isn't a big deal and that article is more reasonable than you make it sound, even if it's pretty fluffy and not saying much. There's an actual, real downward trend in the labor market (at least as "real" as any trend over a short period of time can be, given that BLS employment data collection is really inexact), but that doesn't mean the economy is collapsing. We're 7ish years into a recovery, so at this point anyone who thinks things aren't going to slow down and eventually reverse is just being unrealistic and ignoring a hundred years of economic history. That still doesn't mean that one bad jobs report points to a recession three months from now or whatever. It doesn't mean there will be absolutely be a recession in 3 months, but as you said, the US economy in particular is heavily cyclical and I wouldn't dismiss the growing possibility of a recession in the next 6-9 months. Beyond labor statistics, the clear bubble happening in coastal real state and as well equity markets which seems to indicate that we are probably "do" for at least some type of contraction in the short term. Maybe it is just different this time? [The S&P in particular has looked rather "saw-toothed" for the past 9 months.] I guess it is a open question if it would actually effect the election, we will have to see I guess but it is far from impossible. Anyway, the hope is at least that the next recession would far more mild than the last one. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:[The S&P in particular has looked rather "saw-toothed" for the past 9 months.] This is some laughable sample bias rear end poo poo. By which I mean have you considered a career in professional finance analysis?  The S&P500's two collapses in the last year have both been due to reasons that have little do to with the actual US economy. The first in August was a direct consequence of the Leverage Stock Market crash in China which sent every market in the world into a worry-break for several months. The second one back in January was similarly the result of the investors flinching as Oil prices and further problems in China made people worry about a recession with powerful players screaming fire at the top of their lungs. What I'm trying to convene here is that the S&P500 is a bad indicator for predicting the state of the economy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:This is some laughable sample bias rear end poo poo. By which I mean have you considered a career in professional finance analysis? A true believer? The issue isn't that there were sudden declines in equity markets but rather they have met heavy resistance which it seems they have yet to be able overcome and as far as China and oil goes...the US economy itself is not completely detached from either one, they really aren't the issue. The issue is that equity markets are very clearly in a holding pattern. Also, a similar thing happened in 2007. However, beyond equity markets, real estate markets have been bubbling for a while, and consumer spending and wages are detaching at the same time job growth is minimal. It isn't necessarily proof of a recession but certainly a sign we very well be maybe heading toward one. We will see how the fed reacts, but the chatter is they may get cold feet. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Not not really? Personally, I think the indexes have been over-inflated for years due to the low-rate environment and that if anything is likely to trigger a recession it's going to be a return to the norm on central rates which would most definitely trigger speculation crashes on real estate in countries like Canada and Sweden. A correction is bound to happen, it's just a matter of when. But that is just a hunch. You can guess that a crash is imminent, and history might very well prove you right with all the monstrous profits making that call can include, but you can't scientifically predict it before it happens. There are simply too many factors at play. As for the S&P500, I would argue that it is far more likely to fall as a result of whatever the disaster will be then it is to be the cause of the disaster. EDIT: Stop editing your post. 
MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Not not really? Personally, I think the indexes have been over-inflated for years due to the low-rate environment and that if anything is likely to trigger a recession it's going to be a return to the norm on central rates which would most definitely trigger speculation crashes on real estate in countries like Canada and Sweden. A correction is bound to happen, it's just a matter of when. It isn't going to cause the disaster but it is one of multiple indicators. They have been over inflated for years, but the question is while they are still in so much of a holding pattern especially since the Fed is still dragging their feet on rates. It is almost certain we will have a recession before rates return to their pre-crisis norm. I mean in 2006-2007 they were at over 5 percent, which would takes years at the rate the Fed is moving. Also, I doubt it is only going to be Canada or Sweden, just look at the Bay Area and how much real estate has exploded. I wouldn't say it is imminent either [in 3 months or less], but I think there is a pretty finite time horizon just looking at the situation historically. Ultimately, none of this is actually perfectly predictable but we do have history as a guide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, I doubt it is only going to be Canada or Sweden, just look at the Bay Area and how much real estate has exploded. I said like, not exclusively, you will find no argument here.  ( )Ardennes posted:It isn't going to cause the disaster but it is one of multiple indicators. They have been over inflated for years, but the question is while they are still in so much of a holding pattern especially since the Fed is still dragging their feet on rates. It is almost certain we will have a recession before rates return to their pre-crisis norm. I mean in 2006-2007 they were at over 5 percent, which would takes years at the rate the Fed is moving. Yeah of course there is a finite horizon, did I claim otherwise? 9 months of S&P500 activity is still a poo poo indicator. Put your money where your mouth is if you believe otherwise instead arguing with me, there's millions in it for you if you're right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Yeah of course there is a finite horizon, did I claim otherwise? 9 months of S&P500 activity is still a poo poo indicator. Put your money where your mouth is if you believe otherwise instead arguing with me, there's millions in it for you if you're right. I may look at going into a index fund if there is a good entry point but regardless, it isn't 9 months of data...it is 9 months out of a 9 year cycle. Anyway, we will see how the data goes but if a pattern becomes clear it certainly makes more sense to be defensive at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
If you compare the S&P 500 to earnings, things don't look the greatest. Advances and declines look alright, though.  But the S&P 500 isn't the stock market, let alone the economy. It's just one asset class from the world's largest and most diversified multinationals. Ten stocks make up 20% of the index. And a lot of the components have the cash to afford, and benefit from, stock buyback programs. Stocks-only NYSE might be a better AD to look at:  Or instead of the S&P 500, the Value Line Geometric (it might be esoteric, but I'm a fan):  So things don't look hot. Things will look a little more stormy once you start considering global equities. Things don't look terrible in U.S. equities, though, either. But this Central Banking bubble's left no alternative to equities. Equities will stay up for as long as rates are low, and treasuries will be fine for as long as JGBs and bunds are negative. Sweden's bonds are negative out to twenty years. That's crazy. Way too many people rely on equities today, but there's little else to rely on. At this point, the Plunge Protection Team is none other than everyone Buying The loving Dip, looking for some morsel of capital appreciation in an otherwise flat landscape, especially now that quantitative easing has ended. If we hold up here for long enough, not making a lower swing low, I'm sure inflation will help push us higher. I'm looking a $90 dollar in the next year. But the next few non-farm payrolls are pivotal. The last few were revised down after their release, and the reports together show a micro downtrend.  But there are some good signs right now in equities. There's been a bit of risk appetite in energy, industrials, and materials this last swing up, thanks to their oil correlation, and those have been weighing on the things lately. More recently, healthcare's been acting stronger too, and from time to time financials as well. While not necessarily a bullish sign, fear driving money into consumer staples and utilities has helped pushed equities up recently, and with everyone coming to the agreement that there probably won't be a rate hike at the next Fed meeting, more money will probably flow into utilities. I'm not convinced in any intermediate direction in equities right now. But for now I'm cautiously micro bullish, at least until Yellen speaks on Monday (so, bullish for the next few trading hours, I guess). As for macro, I'm leaning bearish until we make a higher intermediate low or at least give this most recent micro low more time to digest. It would be nice to see a lower dollar and higher earnings, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
It was interesting watch the dollar get stronger from the end of 2014 to the end of 2015. People flipping their poo poo about needing bills of lading for bulk cargoes to be issued before day X. My suspicion was that they had swaps expiring. Welp, that doesnt move the trains or stop the rain.
Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It was interesting watch the dollar get stronger from the end of 2014 to the end of 2015. People flipping their poo poo about needing bills of lading for bulk cargoes to be issued before day X. My suspicion was that they had swaps expiring. Welp, that doesnt move the trains or stop the rain. Can you explain the nexus between the bills of lading for bulk cargo and the exchange value of the USD? Just something non-wonkish so I can learn more about this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:Can you explain the nexus between the bills of lading for bulk cargo and the exchange value of the USD? Just something non-wonkish so I can learn more about this. a bill of lading is basically a contract that says "we sold you 1,000 tons of scrap iron at $1 a pound and it's on the ship Bulkfreighter and will arrive in two weeks". if the dollar is getting stronger then that same cargo might end up costing $1.02 next week, so the sooner the bills are drawn up the better the price given that you probably want a fixed quantity of stuff
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:Can you explain the nexus between the bills of lading for bulk cargo and the exchange value of the USD? Just something non-wonkish so I can learn more about this. Ok, First bulk commodities are very often international so multiple currencies are involved, and even if the commodity isn't going to or from the US often dollars are used so, swaps get used. Next, there are important events that trigger things in the contracts, tendering, passing inspection, notice of readiness b/l being issued, etc differs from contract to contract but there are general themes. So what I think was happening was these contracts had payments triggered by the b/l being issued. If things delay the loading terminal or the vessel arrival the swap might expire before the b/l issuance triggers the exchange of money. Cant have a bill of lading until the vessel is loaded. Then instead of occurring at the exchange rate of the swap, the payment occurs at the current exchange rate. And then somebody gets hosed because they didn't plan ahead adequately for delays. Edit : phone posting so please forgive errors. Actually waiting on a vessel for a b/l to be issued right now. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Sooooooo... The Chinese economy is slowing the gently caress down, every oil producing country is cutting expenses like crazy, banks are loaded with toxic assets, the European stress test are full of poo poo, the real state bubble in Turkey is imploding and Spain decided to absolutely stop any government expense except salaries until next year... When does it all come tumbling the gently caress down?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
Later than you'd think possible, but when it does happen it will be faster than you'd think possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
So instead of wages going up, they are going down? Good thing we don't rely on consumers!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Wages have been stagnating for a while, so the BLS revising their data to show a contraction in wages rather than growth isn't all that surprising. It sucks that this is basically being picked up by right wing nutjobs as an "Obama's economy!" story when revisions like this are really common. In fact, it's way more instructive to look at BLS revisions than it is to watch for headline numbers as they're released.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
If you read the op-ed pages, liberals will assure you that there is actually no problem with wage growth and that actually, productivity has to grow faster before you can expect anything at all, never mind nobody's gotten anything at all for 40 years of solid productivity growth. Larry Summers had a piece in the WaPo just the other day about it. A few weeks ago Matt Yglesias basically declared victory in his podcast on the basis of the numbers the BLS just revised away, saying anyone who wants any more is a racist Bernie Bro who wants to steal food from the mouths of third worlders
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Wages have been stagnating for a while, so the BLS revising their data to show a contraction in wages rather than growth isn't all that surprising. It sucks that this is basically being picked up by right wing nutjobs as an "Obama's economy!" story when revisions like this are really common. In fact, it's way more instructive to look at BLS revisions than it is to watch for headline numbers as they're released. The BLS doesn't normally revise estimates by 4.6% in any direction, what was the reason they gave?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
rscott posted:The BLS doesn't normally revise estimates by 4.6% in any direction, what was the reason they gave? http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm quote:Measures of output for the business, nonfarm business, and nonfinancial corporate sectors, and measures of compensation for all sectors incorporate revised National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) data released on July 29 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Hours and related measures were revised back to 2007 for the business, nonfarm business, and nonfinancial corporate sectors. These revisions were due to the incorporation of 2012 Economic Census data on employment, as well as revised NIPA data on government enterprises employment and the proportion of sector compensation paid to employees of nonprofit institutions and nonfinancial corporations. Measures of manufacturing output and all related measures were revised back to 1987 to reflect revised output indexes constructed by the BLS using data from the U.S. Department of Commerce. So it was a fairly large revision based on the BEA data released last month. The main reason I say it's not really surprising is that actual tax receipts have been down, so something wasn't right. Either the BLS job numbers are off or actual compensation has been weakening. Weak or negative wage growth, weak business investment, and weakening consumer spending really doesn't bode too well for the labor market 6-12 months out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
The Guardian had a lovely image just the other day, one of those cases of news that are better understood together. CEO compensation soars and Companies attack minimum age proposals, one right beside the other. I now regret not having taken a screenshot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm Yeah wages being strong all year despite other fairly weak indicators did seem strange to me as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
The other real snag is that cost of living is going up. Everybody but upper middle and higher is getting hosed in basically every economic way you can think of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Wages have been largely stagnant for like 40 years when accounting for inflation
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
go3 posted:Wages have been largely stagnant for like 40 years when accounting for inflation Yes and no. There was real, sustained wage growth at the very tail end of the 90s, for example. The crazy amounts of inflation that were happening in the late 70s also make the picture a lot muddier, because the high wage growth during that period wasn't actually keeping up with inflation at all. Just looking at wage growth alone makes it seem like it went off a cliff in the 80s, but that's only because wages weren't compensating for out of control inflation. I still think the bigger issue in the labor market by far is the increasing level of polarization, and that a lot of the other negative trends are either directly or indirectly a result of that. It's a huge issue that middle income work is slowly disappearing and higher income work generally requires education that workers have to finance themselves. The lower income work that is available is all extremely sensitive to wage growth and economic downturns too, since it's all heavily dependent on consumer spending. Oh, and college enrollment peaked in 2010 and has been declining, so there's that too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Yes and no. There was real, sustained wage growth at the very tail end of the 90s, for example. The crazy amounts of inflation that were happening in the late 70s also make the picture a lot muddier, because the high wage growth during that period wasn't actually keeping up with inflation at all. Just looking at wage growth alone makes it seem like it went off a cliff in the 80s, but that's only because wages weren't compensating for out of control inflation. http://www.epi.org/publication/unde...d-why-its-real/ Real wages declined for a good 25 years in the 70s and 80s, not because of inflation but because of deliberate economic policy to stop the inflation by curbing persistent excess aggregate demand. 70s inflation was over by 1982, and yet wages continued to fall for another 15 years. So the very slow, off and on growth since the late 90s essentially translates to 0 since the early 70s As for education somehow being the solution to 90%+ of productivity gains going to a tiny elite, it won't do anything. College enrollment and completion rates have skyrocketed over exactly the period the statnation has. There simply aren't enough of these elite jobs for an appreciable number of people to do. Here's a good blog post with more details http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/07/education-wages-and-economic-inequality quote:In fact, median wages for men with a bachelor’s degree or more have declined by about 7% over the past 15 years, and are only slightly higher than they were a quarter century ago. (I don’t have the comparable figures for women at hand). As Krugman notes when commenting on a recent paper regarding the “skills gap” for workers: Neither are any of the other solutions liberal wonk types like to talk up like the labor force participation rate going to do anything. This problem is massive, and would require massive structural changes to fix (essentially socialism), and current American liberalism appears to have absolutely no interest in doing that icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:There simply aren't enough of these elite jobs for an appreciable number of people to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Wouldn't be very elite if there were. For real though, it's telling how intractable a problem this is that the overwhelming liberal response to this issue has been to obfuscate it, play it down and divert attention to stuff that won't do anything like education, labor force participation, and productivity growth rates. Every single op-ed I've seen on the topic has been about why it's not really a problem, the real problem is X TL/DR Marx was right icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:As for education somehow being the solution to 90%+ of productivity gains going to a tiny elite, it won't do anything. College enrollment and completion rates have skyrocketed over exactly the period the statnation has. There simply aren't enough of these elite jobs for an appreciable number of people to do. Here's a good blog post with more details I don't actually disagree with you on any of these points, so my bad if it seemed like I was implying that all we need to do is get more people into college and the problem will go away. What I wanted to point out was that wages aren't actually the problem, they're just a symptom of more serious underlying issues. A Buttery Pastry posted:Wouldn't be very elite if there were. The problem is that the "elite" jobs we're talking about here are just the ones that pay pretty good wages. We aren't talking about breaking into the 1%, we're talking about the sort of jobs that a lot of D&D posters probably have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Turns out people buried under crushing student debt don't have much mobility either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Yes and no. There was real, sustained wage growth at the very tail end of the 90s, for example. The crazy amounts of inflation that were happening in the late 70s also make the picture a lot muddier, because the high wage growth during that period wasn't actually keeping up with inflation at all. Just looking at wage growth alone makes it seem like it went off a cliff in the 80s, but that's only because wages weren't compensating for out of control inflation. Meanwhile colleges are panicking because everybody hates them now and the student debt crisis is, you know, a crisis. It's a very, very real problem when the people that do get those fancy jobs with decent pay thanks to a college education still live in poverty because of how much it costs them to pay it off. It gets even worse when you realize how badly consumer spending has been damaged by people who didn't find good jobs after paying the price tag for one. Try paying $70,000 of student loans when you make $8.50 an hour and are never, ever allowed to have 40 hours a week. A lot of these issues come together into a ticking time bomb, really; it's horrifying that the people buying politicians in America have an attitude of "meh, ignore it. It'll go away on its own. Hey, you think we can make me another billion this year?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
maybe they will kill the 1% finally
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Meanwhile colleges are panicking because everybody hates them now and the student debt crisis is, you know, a crisis. People with fancy jobs don't graduate with much loan debt on average, and what debt they do have is easily payable with said fancy job. It's the loving rent / house prices where those jobs are that will kill you, not a couple hundo a month. I don't know of anyone like you are talking about beyond your occasional outlier. The problem is most people don't have what it takes to succeed in programs that lead to fancy jobs, or choose majors where there are no jobs, or only take a couple years of college and fail out. I think you're overstating it though, there are lots of programs that are now available to assist in paying off / eliminating the debt completely that weren't there just 10 years ago. We have some ways to go and definitely need some new legislation but no it's not a time bomb in any sort of sense. I don't know of any colleges that are panicking, on the contrary most are doing quite well. People aren't going to riot, at any rate. icantfindaname posted:For real though, it's telling how intractable a problem this is that the overwhelming liberal response to this issue has been to obfuscate it, play it down and divert attention to stuff that won't do anything like education, labor force participation, and productivity growth rates. Every single op-ed I've seen on the topic has been about why it's not really a problem, the real problem is X Automation is accelerating at breathtaking speed, technology could very well solve those issues on their own. Or we'll just institute a mincome when the problem gets bad enough, the US is amazingly productive and wealthy and could easily afford something like that when it becomes an issue. I think a lot of people don't realize how many world-changing technologies are coming down the pipeline. But besides that the doom and gloom these days is ridiculous, I really think there's a fundamental lack of perspective when people act like it's the end of the world-- we are aware of a lot more of the bad but there's never been a better time to be alive particularly if you are poor. The average wealth and health of poor countries, like the very worst ones, is higher than the richest countries of just 200 years ago. Can and should it be distributed more fairly? Of course, and if Hillary is elected we'll see things like increases in minimum wage that lower inequality and programs geared towards the college debt problem. As for Marx, I hear Venezuela is lovely this time of year. Eh, I'm being unfair, instead we should look at the successful implementations of socialism such as:
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
tsa posted:People with fancy jobs don't graduate with much loan debt on average, and what debt they do have is easily payable with said fancy job. It's the loving rent / house prices where those jobs are that will kill you, not a couple hundo a month. I don't know of anyone like you are talking about beyond your occasional outlier. The problem is most people don't have what it takes to succeed in programs that lead to fancy jobs, or choose majors where there are no jobs, or only take a couple years of college and fail out. I think you're overstating it though, there are lots of programs that are now available to assist in paying off / eliminating the debt completely that weren't there just 10 years ago. We have some ways to go and definitely need some new legislation but no it's not a time bomb in any sort of sense. There is over a trillion dollars of student debt in America. Trillion. With a T.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
tsa posted:People with fancy jobs don't graduate with much loan debt on average, and what debt they do have is easily payable with said fancy job. It's the loving rent / house prices where those jobs are that will kill you, not a couple hundo a month. I don't know of anyone like you are talking about beyond your occasional outlier. The problem is most people don't have what it takes to succeed in programs that lead to fancy jobs, or choose majors where there are no jobs, or only take a couple years of college and fail out. I think you're overstating it though, there are lots of programs that are now available to assist in paying off / eliminating the debt completely that weren't there just 10 years ago. We have some ways to go and definitely need some new legislation but no it's not a time bomb in any sort of sense. People who never finished college are hurt by student debt far, far more than people with degrees that aren't "marketable." Unsurprisingly, a lot of those people tend to be minorities or from lower income households to begin with, and many drop out for financial rather than academic reasons. Something like one fifth of all borrowers who don't have a degree and aren't currently enrolled to complete one are behind on their payments, and of course the ones who aren't behind on their payments are still paying for something that they never financially benefited them at all. quote:The average wealth and health of poor countries, like the very worst ones, is higher than the richest countries of just 200 years ago. Inequality within a society is all that matters to most people. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Nobody cares that they live a better life than someone who died two hundred years ago, or someone who lives in another country under a drastically different government and in a drastically different society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:There is over a trillion dollars of student debt in America. Wow, that's a big number! No further analysis needed I guess 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
tsa posted:We have some ways to go and definitely need some new legislation but no it's not a time bomb in any sort of sense. I don't know a single person in the world of real estate or new home construction (the fields I work in) that isn't looking at student loans as anything but a time bomb. Lenders are already seeing it all over the place and when more and more people aren't able to get lines of credit because they're already maxed out because of school, that snowballs into pretty much everything. Even people with decent jobs after they graduate have a shitload of debt that's cutting deep into their income every month.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
Well, I will say that after witnessing liberals and Democrats play down and ignore the inequality issue, seeing a purestrain Republican "poor people have refrigerators! refrigerators didn't even exist 200 years ago!" is refreshing in a weird way
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:54
|
|