Muddling For Solutions

[lsllc]

My point was they are not going to have the same kind of life style and accomplishments as the guy who graduated number one in his class at West Point, passed ranger school, SFAS and combat diver, got an MD, and is sitting in the space station now on the Army astronaut program.


No matter how much of someone else’s money you throw at them. So wringing hands over disparate lifestyles and outcomes is kind of pointless.

Are we supposed to pay the guy holding the stop/slow sign as much as the guys doing hard manual labor? Them as much as the skilled guys operating heavy equipment? Them as much as the engineer who took into account slope, grade, materials, design, etc.?

I already ran the numbers on gas. Which, if it were not for taxes seems to be even cheaper than 50 years ago. And even with is pretty on par. Especially given we get twice the mpg for equivalent vehicles.

A gallon of milk then was about $1.30. Almost nine bucks in today’s dollars. And they didn’t have organic extra vegan like 1.077% reduced semi skim or whatever options then. A loaf of bread was 25 to 30 cents. Basic bread. About 2$ in today’s dollars. The average price is $2.50. But you can get country white, old fashioned, etc. The basic Sara Lee / Wonder white averages $2.09 a loaf. Pretty equivalent.

The average home price Was $25,000 in 1970. The equivalent of 170k now. Current average is about 290k now. Some of that is the big city bubble with people paying a ton. And the size was about 1500 sq ft. Not even accounting for central air, fancier designs, taller ceilings, extra bedrooms and bathrooms, etc. the average home now is 1000 sf bigger. And we have gone from an average of 3.5 people in each home to 2.5.

The average price per sf of a home then, in today’s dollars, is well, a bit over $100 just like it is now.

What percentage of people 50 years ago did a destination princess wedding, trips to Disney, cruises, vacations in Vegas, home theatres, pools, compared to now? How many people then ate out at restaurants and at what frequency compared to now?

The standard of living is huge here.

The standard of living for people that suck at life is way better than it was 50 years ago.
The standard of living for people that kick ass at life is better than it was 50 years ago.
The issue seems to be, that while life is better for people for people that are mediocre at life, it has neither gotten as proportionality better than for those that suck, nor for those that kick ass.

You’re not going to convince them. It just doesn’t work. They want to complain the system is rigged and not offer solutions for improving on what is an excellent economy which the biggest losers live better than 99% of the rest of the world and better than the wealthiest Americans 50 years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[26 Inf]

“Our very unscientific...”

By admission in your own link.

It isn’t the CPI.

Let me ask you, are you are hanging your hat on the CPI, because it fits your narrative? Or do you routinely believe the info that government agencies put out? Now be truthful.

[AndyLate]

People under 30 simply have no idea how great the middle class standard of living is now.

We have caused the increases in utilities, rent, home prices, and car prices. If the average American was struggling, would they have multiple 55"+ TVs, new cell phones for everyone in the home, 3000 Sq ft or larger homes?

[26 Inf]

You’re not going to convince them. It just doesn’t work. They want to complain the system is rigged and not offer solutions for improving on what is an excellent economy which the biggest losers live better than 99% of the rest of the world and better than the wealthiest Americans 50 years ago.

I don't think the system is rigged per se, nor do I think that the wealthiest American's want to put their boots on the necks of the lower-income Americans and hold them down. The reality is, though, that to many that is the way it seems.

The reality is that at some point it is going to bust wide-open. I believe America needs a robust middle-class. The robustness of the middle-class is rapidly receding.

According to Pew Research, more American households make up the middle class than 40 years ago, yet they comprise a smaller share of overall wealth. In 1971 the percentage of wealth controlled by the middle-class was 62%; by 2015 that percentage had fallen to 43%. It is important to remember that the 43% of wealth controlled by the middle-class is split by more households than it was in 1971.

The graph linked below shows the transfer of aggregate income. Notice that around 2008, the percentage aggregate income controlled shifted back to the middle-income. That is because the upper-income's stocks took a momentary shit - I know how that felt, on paper I lost about $400,000. But, as the economy has recovered the aggregate controlled by the upper-income families continued to rise.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-c...resize=600,443

So, if the trend continues, at some point in the near future we are going to see a Nation of 90% have not's and 10% have's. At that point spending by the majority of folks will be for basic essentials and sale of luxury items will be substantially diminished. Things will have to reset rapidly - car makers, for example, will have to reset back to mass production of basic economy cars, it will be likely that those who don't read the market correctly will fail.

Worst case scenario, we become a Nation where the few Uber Rich drive in the center lanes while the rest fawn over them from the outer lanes.

Why do I think this has occurred? The market/industry became obsessed with increasing shareholder value to the exclusion of all else. Don't get me wrong, the year I retired I was a millionaire due to regular investment over my 40 year work career.

The problem is that in order to continually increase shareholder value expenses need to be controlled or cut. Labor, obviously, is a major expense. As a result you have seen wages not keep up with the cost of living for many workers.

You can say otherwise, but that is the reality for many American's today.

[jsbhike]

A good recent example of the system being rigged were the bailouts.

[lsllc]

I don't think the system is rigged per se, nor do I think that the wealthiest American's want to put their boots on the necks of the lower-income Americans and hold them down. The reality is, though, that to many that is the way it seems.

The reality is that at some point it is going to bust wide-open. I believe America needs a robust middle-class. The robustness of the middle-class is rapidly receding.

According to Pew Research, more American households make up the middle class than 40 years ago, yet they comprise a smaller share of overall wealth. In 1971 the percentage of wealth controlled by the middle-class was 62%; by 2015 that percentage had fallen to 43%. It is important to remember that the 43% of wealth controlled by the middle-class is split by more households than it was in 1971.

The graph linked below shows the transfer of aggregate income. Notice that around 2008, the percentage aggregate income controlled shifted back to the middle-income. That is because the upper-income's stocks took a momentary shit - I know how that felt, on paper I lost about $400,000. But, as the economy has recovered the aggregate controlled by the upper-income families continued to rise.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-c...resize=600,443

So, if the trend continues, at some point in the near future we are going to see a Nation of 90% have not's and 10% have's. At that point spending by the majority of folks will be for basic essentials and sale of luxury items will be substantially diminished. Things will have to reset rapidly - car makers, for example, will have to reset back to mass production of basic economy cars, it will be likely that those who don't read the market correctly will fail.

Worst case scenario, we become a Nation where the few Uber Rich drive in the center lanes while the rest fawn over them from the outer lanes.

Why do I think this has occurred? The market/industry became obsessed with increasing shareholder value to the exclusion of all else. Don't get me wrong, the year I retired I was a millionaire due to regular investment over my 40 year work career.

The problem is that in order to continually increase shareholder value expenses need to be controlled or cut. Labor, obviously, is a major expense. As a result you have seen wages not keep up with the cost of living for many workers.

You can say otherwise, but that is the reality for many American's today.

Cool. You’re a mercantilist.

Pew Research....hmmm. Agenda much?

Let me ask you a question.

You have a windfall. You get a Colt 6920 for 500 bucks. You take it to the local gunshop because you don’t want to deal with shipping it, listing it online etc.

The gunshop gives you $600 cash and you’re on your way. You made $100.

The gunshop has $600 in this Colt. But they sell it the next day for $720. They made $120.

Are you and the gunshop both better off?

Does it hurt you that the gunshop made more than you?

Is it wrong that the gunshop made more off the Colt than you did?



Talk about it “classes” all you want, but holding to these ridiculous “we need this many here and this many there” nothing is asinine.

Why does somebody else doing better off hurt you?

Is it jealousy?

Just the simple math of it. If everybody makes 10% more every decade and you decide it’s a good idea to put people in these boxes, ultimately, 10% of a larger number is going to grow faster. It’s freakin’ math, man.

What do you propose? A cap on earnings? On wealth? Who is going to invest if they get told they aren’t allowed to earn market rates?

Do you put all your stock in some dumbass website?

Do you put all your stock in the “pew research” and bullshit about classes? It’s being used for a political agenda. Do you not see that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lsllc]

Weird in one post somebody bitches the middle class is shrinking to nothing now somebody saying it’s more households.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[26 Inf]

Are you and the gunshop both better off?

Does it hurt you that the gunshop made more than you?

Is it wrong that the gunshop made more off the Colt than you did?

No, no, and no. We each made a reasonable amount, in fact we each made the same percentage of profit for the money invested.

Talk about it “classes” all you want, but holding to these ridiculous “we need this many here and this many there” nothing is asinine.

Why does somebody else doing better off hurt you?

Is it jealousy?

A robust middle class provides the purchasing power for goods. If the current trend continues the market for premium/high end goods will shrink. As the wealth transfers into fewer and fewer hands at some point those that can afford it will have already bought their private jests and yachts. Then what?

We are not talking about numbers of people per se, rather talking about the distribution of a finite resource (as we view it), wealth, across a population.

You need to look at the historical perspective illustrated by the graph I linked (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-c...resize=600,443) to understand my concerns. When I began my 'work' career in 1972, the wealth was more evenly distributed across the population. Throughout my work career the distribution of wealth became more unevenly distributed, until we end up in today's circumstances.

Someone being more successful shouldn't concern anyone. The concern comes when that success is used to leverage more success for those who have had initial success against the likelihood of success for those who haven't been as successful.

As far as jealousy, you don't really know me anymore than I know you. I am, if not completely happy with my life, pretty close to being so. I made a conscious decision one day to chase what I wanted to do instead of chasing wealth. Decisions I made such as deciding not to move so that my sons would grow up having lifelong friends, could have hurt me, but they didn't. Until the day I retired I loved what I was doing and had always felt I was adequately compensated for doing it.

So, I'm content, my concern is more for others than myself.

Just the simple math of it. If everybody makes 10% more every decade and you decide it’s a good idea to put people in these boxes, ultimately, 10% of a larger number is going to grow faster. It’s freakin’ math, man.

What do you propose? A cap on earnings? On wealth? Who is going to invest if they get told they aren’t allowed to earn market rates?

Believe it or not, I can do math. Unlike you, I'm looking at the consequences of that math as it gets carried out for the next decade or so.

Where I think we differ is that you figure on being on the winning end of that equation, so you could give a **** less.

In terms of what to do, there's the rub. While I'm at heart a Keynesian, a cap on earnings, or wealth certainly isn't a light hand on the controls of the economy.

The problem that I see is the inordinate power that funds have in the market. As an example, McDonald's has raised its dividend for 43 consecutive years since paying its first dividend in 1976. https://www.streetinsider.com/Divide.../15933397.html

Most of the McDonald's shares are probably voted by proxy. If each McDonald's shareholder was asked to take, let's say 10% less on dividends each quarter so that McDonald's could raise wages for workers at it's corporate owned stores and it's franchisee owned stores, what do you think the majority of individual shareholders would do?

Because of the funds managing those stocks, the shareholders really don't have a say. The funds voting those blocks have all the power.

So, would I, as an investor, have been willing to take slightly less growth during the last 30 years to increase wages across the board? For me the answer would be yes.

Do you put all your stock in some dumbass website?

Do you put all your stock in the “pew research” and bullshit about classes? It’s being used for a political agenda. Do you not see that?

I put more stock in that dumbass website than I do some random person on a website.

No I don't really see Pew as being politically biased: Pew Research Center media bias rating is Center. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/pew-research

[26 Inf]

Weird in one post somebody bitches the middle class is shrinking to nothing now somebody saying it’s more households.

That is because of how 'middle-class' is defined:

“middle-income” Americans are defined as adults whose annual household income is two-thirds to double the national median, about $42,000 to $126,000 annually in 2014 dollars for a household of three.

So there are more American families in that zone, but their slice of overall wealth has diminished.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015...losing-ground/

[lsllc]

No, no, and no. We each made a reasonable amount, in fact we each made the same percentage of profit for the money invested.



A robust middle class provides the purchasing power for goods. If the current trend continues the market for premium/high end goods will shrink. As the wealth transfers into fewer and fewer hands at some point those that can afford it will have already bought their private jests and yachts. Then what?

We are not talking about numbers of people per se, rather talking about the distribution of a finite resource (as we view it), wealth, across a population.

You need to look at the historical perspective illustrated by the graph I linked (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-c...resize=600,443) to understand my concerns. When I began my 'work' career in 1972, the wealth was more evenly distributed across the population. Throughout my work career the distribution of wealth became more unevenly distributed, until we end up in today's circumstances.

Someone being more successful shouldn't concern anyone. The concern comes when that success is used to leverage more success for those who have had initial success against the likelihood of success for those who haven't been as successful.

As far as jealousy, you don't really know me anymore than I know you. I am, if not completely happy with my life, pretty close to being so. I made a conscious decision one day to chase what I wanted to do instead of chasing wealth. Decisions I made such as deciding not to move so that my sons would grow up having lifelong friends, could have hurt me, but they didn't. Until the day I retired I loved what I was doing and had always felt I was adequately compensated for doing it.

So, I'm content, my concern is more for others than myself.



Believe it or not, I can do math. Unlike you, I'm looking at the consequences of that math as it gets carried out for the next decade or so.

Where I think we differ is that you figure on being on the winning end of that equation, so you could give a **** less.

In terms of what to do, there's the rub. While I'm at heart a Keynesian, a cap on earnings, or wealth certainly isn't a light hand on the controls of the economy.

The problem that I see is the inordinate power that funds have in the market. As an example, McDonald's has raised its dividend for 43 consecutive years since paying its first dividend in 1976. https://www.streetinsider.com/Divide.../15933397.html

Most of the McDonald's shares are probably voted by proxy. If each McDonald's shareholder was asked to take, let's say 10% less on dividends each quarter so that McDonald's could raise wages for workers at it's corporate owned stores and it's franchisee owned stores, what do you think the majority of individual shareholders would do?

Because of the funds managing those stocks, the shareholders really don't have a say. The funds voting those blocks have all the power.

So, would I, as an investor, have been willing to take slightly less growth during the last 30 years to increase wages across the board? For me the answer would be yes.



I put more stock in that dumbass website than I do some random person on a website.

No I don't really see Pew as being politically biased: Pew Research Center media bias rating is Center. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/pew-research

I didn’t say pew was politically biased, I stated that class, specifically size of classes, is being used for political agenda.

But know that you admit to being Keynesian, and then your “solution”. I see where you are coming from. You are coming from la la land.

I’ll make this simple for you:

So what happens when people make more? They demand more. When there is more demand, price goes up. It’s simple. Purchasing power parity. It’s a thing. Essentially, we get more of the inflation you guys are bitching about.

Who gets hurt by inflation? Those that are living on fixed incomes. Those living off investments. The retired, the disabled...so on.

So now I suppose how we are all going to hold hands and agree to take less in profit, so that prices won’t go up, and so on.

You simply cannot accept the truth of the economy and that our standard of living is the greatest it’s ever been and much better than anywhere else....because those managing capita seek profit. Once they cease to, we stagnate.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk