|
Radbot posted:That analysis ignores the fact that new development rarely reflects the current housing stock mix. In Denver, for example, there are *far* more luxury apartments and townhomes going up than single family homes, driving up average rents while not reducing demand for lower-end housing as areas become more desirable. But luxury development often does become working class housing. I lived in a Victorian inner ring suburb full of big houses with minarets and stained glass, now inhabited by old Italians and young African American families. It's not magic and it won't happen anytime "soon," but the use of this kind of housing stock inevitably changes, even if it's hard to grasp the timescales on which these processes operate. I don't want to apologize too much for developers, unrestrained they would never provide the kind of mixed income housing known to benefit communities, but places like San Francisco must have more housing. And there are many obvious better features you get in newer buildings. Features like no lead in the paint or pipes, or a garage.
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
Radbot posted:This is a process that takes many decades, and doesn't really address the issue - housing affordability NOW, or at least in the forseeable future. Yeah well unfortunately it's hard to conjure up billions of dollars in infrastructure overnight.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:So I know there's almost zero chance Mark hasn't been posted itt but just in case: I had never heard of him until this year, now I see people sharing videos of him all over the place. What gives? Did he put out a book or something, I guess I like his videos but I'm just curious how he became prominent.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I'm sure being able to buy cheaper smartphones, TV's and baby-gap t-shirts is a huge comfort to the lower income strata working in uncertain 8$ an hour employments while drowning in debt, increasing property costs and healthcare they could never afford. No way is this just not patchwork on a completely unsustainable situation. Come on dude, this isn't just tvs it's also diapers refrigerators and cars, things people can't exactly skip. And I would expect healthcare and rent probably have little to do with global trade anyway, so it's not like protectionism is going to help there
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Except that things were better under protectionism in several of those regards. You just don't seem to get why the loss of political bargaining power actually matters. It's not happenstance that lower-income's aren't keeping pace with the costs of essential needs anymore. Okay let me see if I understand the argument. You are saying that because liberalization has undermined labour's bargaining power, it has indirectly led to increases in the cost of healthcare and housing by preventing the implementation of policies that could have ameliorated the problem, correct?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:
What is this supposed supposed to mean? Edit: did you mean U6 unemployment? Squalid fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
skull mask mcgee posted:12-18 months? Just in time for me to graduate into a recession Lucky for you anybody predicting a recession with that kind of precision selling you a fantasy, regardless of what the tea leaves say
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
call to action posted:
I'm afraid I'm a bit dense, I don't quite understand your point. Is it just that another recession will likely happen eventually?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Hmm so since recessions reoccur every four years, and it's been 8 years since the last one, a recession occurring now is twice as likely as it was in 2010 correct?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The sample size is too small plus the line between technical recession and periods of close to zero growth is fine enough that that table is pretty meaningless. See I'm no bull but I know bullshit when I see it. Even when the signs of a recession/recover seem obvious there's no way you can predict when exactly they will come. It's incredibly hard even say exactly what is happening now, economists routinely fail to identify recessions until they've already been underway for months. So imagine the absurdity of a post like that of Ardennes' in which through careful study of the 'trends' as he calls them, he can confidently warn of a recession in 12-18 months. Of course in January 2016 he was warning that America was in the process of entering a "great stagnation," and eight months ago he "wouldn't dismiss the growing possibility of a recession in the next 6-9 months." One begins to wonder from what ugly recess he pulls these estimates. Skull mask mcgee, before fretting about your job prospects have you considered checking to astrology section of your local paper? You might find its predictions more hopeful and no less plausible than those itt.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Either it brings back manufacturing or causes another world wide depression which he gets blamed for. You'd have to be deluded to believe this will bring back manufacturing so it looks like there aren't a whole lot of options
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Plus it will cost rich people a lot of money, which is always nice. If you might ever have reason to buy a car, or telephone, or microwave, or refrigerator, or an a/c, a trade war will cost you a lot of money.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
I'm not sure why you're so convinced tariffs are going to sock it to the 1% relative to everyone else, but let's try and think for a second how import substitution is supposed increase manufacturing employment. As soon as you up the price of goods, you start taking money out of the pocket of every American worker, and you give it American factory owners. You're literally redistributing wealth from real Americans into the hands of capitalists. Now THEORETICALLY, the idea is that wealth will trickle back down as they start employing more people to make widgets, assuming they can't now make robots to do it instead. But like, immediately the wealth transfer is regressive, you're taking money from pensioners and giving to the the rich, and praying they'll start giving it back at some point. You're not punishing the rich, you're dumping poor people's money on them, and harming everyone in aggregate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:According to articles I've seen on the topic the dollar should strengthen versus other currencies, which would negate the effect of imports being more expensive, as more people want to buy dollars to buy untaxed American exports. Of course that depends on international currency markets working like they do in the textbook (they don't) and Trump has stated repeatedly he wants the dollar to be weaker not stronger, so... How does this proposal compare with European consumption taxes?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:This is a great interview. My only real gripe is with the attitude that we can't actually change policy now because of retaliation. gently caress that pussy bullshit. America is an economic behemoth and most countries would get crushed if they tried to play that game. The global economy is not a football game and you don't win by beating everyone else. We all win when we work together to make ourselves and the world a more prosperous place. You are identical to the German who says Greeks need to be disciplined for their profligacy: even if it destroys their economy. You're the same as the racist who says welfare queens are exploiting hard working (white) folk. You're indistinguishable from the anti-immigrant hardliners who want our fieldworkers deported to boost wages for Americans- even if it's guaranteed those jobs we just go to different foreign workers on seasonal work visas, or be automated. You just want America to start winning again so bad- you don't care if winning over everybody else is certain to make us all worse off.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
See, you're so intent on making this a competition, where America has to gently caress the rest of the world to make itself better off. The world doesn't have to be like that, and looking at the practical consequences of that kind of attitude its obvious that, at every political scale from the family on up to international relations, it hurts everybody. Yet still we remain convinced that if we can just make everyone worse off than ourselves, it will somehow fix our problems. It doesn't have to be. Today it feels like the world is seized with some kind of violent mania in which everyone is convinced that by screwing enough people over they can fix all their own problems, and then they look around themselves and can't figure out why everyone else is screwing them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Yeah, welcome to the part of america that exists between Los Angeles and DC you loving jabronie. I was thinking recently about Trump's plan to cut billions from Federal agencies and give it to the military, and I realized it was a fairly straightforward redistribution of government spoils from liberal leaning well-educated white collar workers to conservative leaning men without college degrees. Seems like good politics tbh.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
mitztronic posted:This describes my situation It's true and good advice, but you can't let your emotion rule your investing behavior. I recommend you get a copy of the book The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham, your gut feelings are not your friend. You will never successfully time the market. Humans are naturally risk averse, but losses from missed opportunities are just as real as those from over-optimism. If you want to read about people who successfully bet against the market, read the Big Short, or just see the movie. Even with a market as ridiculous as the 2007 derivatives bubble, it required an enormous amount of research and/or a deep understanding of fundamental financial processes to understand how to make money off the collapse. And even when all the data was telling them to bet against the housing market, they came under enormous psychological pressure to ignore it. History tells us we mostly can't resist the pressure to conform. Just invest a little cash every month, good news or bad. Average out your risk and don't let your hunches and psychological hangups rule what should be a rational decision.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 05:20
|
|