SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
American greatness was long premised on the common assumption was that each generation would do better than previous one. That is being undermined for the emerging millennial generation.
The problems facing millennials include an economy where job growth has been largely in service and part-time employment, producing lower incomes; the Census bureau estimates they earn, even with a full-time job, $2,000 less in real dollars than the same age group made in 1980. More millennials, notes a recent White House report, face far longer period of unemployment and suffer low rates of labor participation. More than 20 percent of people 18 to 34 live in poverty, up from 14 percent in 1980.
They are also saddled with ever more college debt, with around half of students borrowing for their education during the 2013-14 school year, up from around 30 percent in the mid-1990s. All this at a time when the returns on education seem to be dropping: A millennial with both a college degree and college debt, according to a recent analysis of Federal Reserve data, earns about the same as a boomer without a degree did at the same age.
[...] Like medieval serfs in pre-industrial Europe, America's new generation, particularly in its alpha cities, seems increasingly destined to spend their lives paying off their overlords, and having little to show for it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:52AM
The actual value of a home is maybe a little higher than it was when I was growing up. The cost has skyrocketed. Where DOES all that money go? Supid question, of course. It finds it's way into the pockets of the upper 1% of the upper 1%. Those big banks that we bailed out a few years ago - the ones that claim to be working for "investors". A few smaller sharks and parasites manage to get moderately rich while funneling money into the really rich bastard's pockets, but they exist to feed the bigger sharks. Or, they are allowed to exist, so long as they feed the bigger sharks.
That's bad enough, but apparently the Court-Fool-Acting-President is on board with deregulating everything from building codes to finance laws. The average homeowner-wannabe is going to be truly fucked in years to come. Financing a home was tough in the best of times, and it's only getting worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:38AM
That's bad enough, but apparently the Court-Fool-Acting-President is on board with deregulating everything from building codes to finance laws.
Those laws are part of what got us into this mess. I support Trump's efforts to get us out.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Weasley on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:41AM
The president lacks the authority to turn the country into a libertarian utopia. He will accomplish little more than deregulating enough to ensure monopolies are maintained, and the rich get richer...just like every other high level politician.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:58AM
There's room for doubt, depending on how it turns out.
For example, a lot of the regulations that are currently in place actively support big incumbents, either by assuming their legitimacy or by acting as a barrier to new market entrants.
Case in point, the H1B thing. Mom and Pop aren't complaining, but AlphaGoogle and Microsoft are crying great, salty tears.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:02PM
There was a law that required financial advisers to act in their clients best interest (and e.g. not knowingly sell them bad mortgage debt as an investment).
Somehow I don't think repealing that benefited the little guy... [forbes.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:24AM
That is the libertarian goal. It's just the feeble-minded libertarians who haven't realized it yet.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:28PM
I'd say that's more the goal of right wing authoritarians that have poisoned the concept of libertarianism. I personally think the goals of a sort of individualism like civil libertarianism [wikipedia.org] are fairer and a more honest attempt at creating a utopia for the majority. I don't see how people who fight the tide in support of this can be described as feeble-minded. The feeble-minded are those that fall for the spin of the authoritarian status quo.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:40PM
No, it's not the libertarian goal, but it may well be the Libertarian goal. I haven't followed that party's platform in decades, so I not real sure.
That said, even the libertarian goal isn't workable in a society where you don't know most people you deal with. You need at least a minarchy with well enforced rules. And I happen to favor liberal social policies combined with conservative economic policies. Meaning those with power should be held more tightly to the rules than those lacking power. (Actually, I suspect I'm deluded in thinking of that as an actual conservative position, it probably more reflects my ignorance back when I was a child. I doubt it was ever really in practice.)
For conservative I mean someone who attempts to retain what the see as the good features of the current system. For libertarian I mean someone who proposes lightening some of the constraints imposed by the current systems. These two concepts are inherently at odds with each other, but they aren't directly opposed, and it's possible to support both. I just suspect that my conservatism is based on a deluded ideal of what the system was as I was growing up.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by migz on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:58AM
Monopolies love regulation. That way they can keep competition out. If the government did not create regulations to keep competition out, how would the monopolies maintain their power?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:54AM
Patents.
I did something. This is my business model. Now, kind sirs, please pass law for me to tell that man down the street that he can't do it too.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:43PM
The clear answer here is that a patent *is* a monopoly and a regulation. The problem being pointed out is actually the selective removal of regulations.
Unfortunately, things are more complex than that. The unselective removal of regulations would also favor the powerful...though not as much as being able to select which regulations got removed.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:05PM
You can maintain monopoly using established market power - no regulation needed. How did you think 20s robber barons come about?
Regulation is not necessarily pro- nor anti-monopolies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:16PM
Monopolies love regulation.
Monopolies only love regulation they control. They don't like regulations that stop/break up monopolies. With no regulations, the biggest guy on the block wins the argument and the biggest guy is the monopoly.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:24PM
Uhhhh - wait a second. Which laws, exactly, got us into that mess? Glass-Steagall? Either you are joking, and doing a poor job of it, or you're 'bout dumb as a box of rocks. Glass-Steagall was passed IN RESPONSE TO the housing bubble crash. We crashed and burned because there was little regulation. Selling derivatives of bad mortgages never made sense to anyone, except idiots. The bankers couldn't wait to get rid of those most toxic "investments", so they committed fraud on various groups and people around the world, to get THEM to invest THEIR money, instead of the bank's own money.
Jesus - I certainly hope you're just a poor joke-maker.
(Score: 2) by goody on Tuesday February 07 2017, @09:20PM
Dodd-Frank was passed in response to the housing bubble crash. Glass-Steagall was what was repealed in 1999 prior to the housing bubble crash and contributed to it. But you're essentially right about the laws. Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank, which is repeating history all over again, and very stupid.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 08 2017, @01:08AM
Thank you for the correction - I get my own derp for that post, LOL.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @01:30AM
Dodd-Frank has introduced so much make-work it might as well be called the Corporate Lawyer Full Employment Bill.
There are better ways of solving the problems at hand.
And besides, Trump doesn't get to repeal anything. It's not a power the president has.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:00AM
That's not very catchy, I've settled on "The Great Embarrassment" myself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:00PM
Amusing that you're blaming Trump for building codes - which are a local and county level issue - while also blaming him for banking bailouts that happened under Bush and Obama.
I voted third party, but I must admit the Trump win is giving me oodles of entertainment value. It's the like the over-reaction just can't stop.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:44PM
Maybe read my post again. I'm not blaming Trump for the banking bailout. I'm blaming him for not learning anything. Bush deregulated the banking industry, bankers went apeshit over stupid stuff, they went broke. Obama wants to do all the same kind of deregulation as Bush did? Mmmmm - the next crash will be Trump's baby, not Bush's or Obama's.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:11PM
While I'm more than happy to blame a lot of stuff on the "upper 1% of the upper 1%," I'm not really sure I understand your argument here. Housing prices have gone up because... RICH PEOPLE?
Yes, there are undoubtedly some housing markets where clearly the prices are actively manipulated or oversold (particularly new developments). And all sorts of nonsense was going on in the 2006ish years at peak bubble.
But, realize we're a decade past that now. That doesn't mean bad stuff isn't still going on, but the market is completely different. Back in the early 2000s, you had people being sold on ridiculous mortgages with crazy terms that were designed to suck the greatest amount of money out -- and people were buying second and third homes left and right with no credit, driving up prices for even vacant properties in "ghost town" developments.
Compare that to today, when the past 4-5 years have had RECORD LOW mortgage financing rates, and that led to a house-buying boom which made houses hard to find in many markets around the U.S. Hence, sellers could jack up prices for the first time since the housing crisis, leading to increased profits for those who already owned. Supply and demand and all that. Very different scenario from 2006.
Again, I'm not arguing that ultimately a lot of money still finds its way into the super-rich in various ways... but I'm not quite sure how you're blaming "skyrocketing" housing costs only on them? People increasingly like to live closer in to big cities. Housing is expensive there. Rural American communities are dying as the exodus to the cities has become pervasive (yes, this has been a trope for decades, but it's only getting worse). If you want a house a couple hours out from the big cities, you can probably find someone almost willing to give you one. The money here is mostly flowing to previous owners, who can jack up prices because the market has been helpful to sellers in desirable areas.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:29PM
I drive an hour each way to work, and listen to the radio. (Old fashioned FM radio.) I'm hit at least a couple times each day with adverts for a seminar on flipping houses, specifically in Shreveport. "Invest with other people's money!"
Sorry, I don't believe the housing market is anywhere near healthy. There's still to much of the same old same old going on. Greedy bastards who don't want to invest time, money, or anything else into a home, they just want to make a buck.
I can't possibly say how many people call in to take the seminar, but the fact that they keep advertising month after month suggests that there is a market.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:56PM
Is there a market for flipping houses? Obviously! That's one of the results of the supply-and-demand issue I brought up.
But the people who are listening to those advertisements and taking a seminar on flipping houses are NOT the "upper 1% of the upper 1%" which is who you were targeting. Heck, I have someone in my family who has bought houses, fixed them up, and sold them for profit. In general, he does this with houses that would be very undesirable to current buyers -- so he's generally taking something that hadn't been improved by the owners for 30 or 40 years -- NOT just "slap on a couple upgrades" and resell. But my family members aren't even part of the "1%," let alone the "upper 1% of the upper 1%." This guy is just a regular middle-class dude.
Anyhow, I know this isn't the type of person you're probably talking about (i.e., a sort of "responsible upgrader"). But still -- the folks listening to those seminars aren't part of the 1%. At best, if they start successfully flipping houses (and for everyone who tries this, there are probably five stories of people who fail), they might be on their way to becoming part of the 1% and maybe achieve it.
If you really want to talk about this problem of middle-class and upper-middle class folks buying houses they won't live in -- well, I'd say in that case the larger number isn't people "flipping houses" for profit, but people buying rentals to create supplementary income. That is an issue in some markets, and it does drive up both rents and housing costs. But again, these people are frequently not even in the 1% when they start, and it would take a lot of rental income to put them in the 1% income bracket alone.
But the "upper 1% of the upper 1%" you were complaining about? Those are people with net worths of $100 million+. Those people aren't taking house-flipping seminars they heard about on the radio. If they are investing in real estate, they're likely either in rentals (residential or commercial) or if they are actually interested in selling homes, they're maybe speculating in new developments... which I *specifically* mentioned in my original post as an exception to where housing prices can get out of whack.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:55PM
Didn't the Court Fool, Trump, get involved in that nonsense? Some kind of idiot's academy for Make Big Money In Real Estate™. And, that turned into some kind of scandal, blah blah etc.
I'm not absolutely certain that Trump is the upper 1% of the upper 1%, but he's gotta be damned close to it. I suppose that if it were actually graphed out, Trump is near the bottom of the upper .01% - he's not a Soros, or a Murdoch, after all. Still, he's rich and powerful. It might even be argued that he's more powerful than Soros or Murdoch - all depending on how you measure power, of course.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:07PM
> Where DOES all that money go?
Developers mostly, actually.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 08 2017, @05:43AM
I don't know about the wider world, but my family in the 1970s spent about 2.5x one annual income on a new home - it was 1400 square feet 3/2.
In the early 1990s, I spent about 2.5x of my annual income on an old home in a big city - it was about 1200sf 2/1.
4 years ago, I spent about 2x of my annual income (with 20+ years experience in a career) on an old-ish home in a smaller city - it is about 2000sf 3/2.
I think if you look at trends, homes are getting bigger, but for the most part their prices are pegged to what people can afford, not what they're "getting" in the homes.
🌻🌻 [google.com]