SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Tuesday, August 4th, Neflix announced on their blog that they would begin offering new parents a progressive parental leave policy:
...Today we're introducing an unlimited leave policy for new moms and dads that allows them to take off as much time as they want during the first year after a child's birth or adoption.
The Boston Globe picked up the story earlier today and compared Netflix's new policy to Google's, which offers 18 weeks of paid maternity leave and 12 weeks of "baby bonding" time. The Boston Globe also notes:
The US and Papua New Guinea are the only countries among 185 nations and territories that hadn't imposed government-mandated laws requiring employers to pay mothers while on leave with their babies, according to a study released last year by the United Nations' International Labor Organization.
This new policy "covers all of the roughly 2,000 people working at [Netflix's] Internet video and DVD-by-mail services, according to the Los Gatos, California, company."
However, not all media voices are pleased with this change. Suzanne Venker, author of the recent book The Two-Income Trap: Why Parents Are Choosing To Stay Home, writes for Time :
Offering new parents full pay for up to one year is akin to putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. The needs of children are huge, and they do not end at one year. On the contrary, they just begin. Taking a year off of work to meet those needs merely scratches the surface.
What does Soylent think? Should companies offer new parents lengthy paid leave after they bring a new bundle of joy into the world, or do generous policies do more harm than good?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday August 06 2015, @05:24PM
you are correct that in many areas of the US, you HAVE to have both people work to be able to afford a house, etc.
I'm single, live alone and have never been able to afford to buy a house (in the bay area). I'm over 50 and yet have never owned a house. if that's not a statement of FAILURE of the american system, I don't know what is. my father who was not in technology, had a 'regular boring old job' WAS able to afford to keep 3 kids alive, in a good house, in a good neighborhood, and put us thru college, as well. single income; my mother never worked a 'paid job'. and yet, they had most of what we call the american dream.
me, I make 2x of what my father did, but I may never afford a house in a tech-center of the country. not on a single income.
draw the line and see when society will crash. not sure when, but the decimation of the middle class WILL cause us to have either a collapse or revolution. things don't look good here. seeing people in the 60's and 70's working every day just to make ends meet should tell everyone how broken our system is.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 06 2015, @05:56PM
Home ownership was never something that could just be expected. The amount of space in places that people would actually like to live is limited and unless you want to see all the forests near cities torn down to make room for houses, building enough isn't really an option.
Personally, I don't plan on buying a house, most of the time it's cheaper to rent, and if it happens to be less expensive to buy, that tends not to last very long.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:02PM
growing up (60's and 70's) it was taught to us that you should EXPECT to own a house. if you have a reasonable job/income, you should be able to buy a house.
one thing I hate about being a renter: there is no security in it! each year, I have to worry if the landlord is going to raise the rent or even renew me. and if they don't renew me, I have 30 or maybe 60 days to find a new place, which means 'stop everything!' and make that your #1 prio. its a lot of stress and if you are picky about what kind of place you live in (quiet, safe, no shared walls, etc) then you have quite a job ahead of you to find a new place.
even worse, if you happen to be out of work (like I am right now) and if your lease is not being renewed, you are ROYALLY SCREWED! at least in the bay area. not a single landlord will rent to you, even if you have a good amount of savings, if you are not employed RIGHT NOW. does not matter if you've held stable jobs or if your occupation has times where you are between jobs. landlords will not bother with you and there were 30 people competing for the place I'm in now (!) and with that competition, they don't want to deal with people out of work (right now). you can be homeless if the timing is wrong.
the US is fucked. we really truly are. if it has not happened to you, you have been lucky or have not lived long enough to have it happen to you. yet.
renting sucks. and having to live with strange rules by strange landlords is no fun, either.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:23PM
Renting is a matter of tradeoffs.
How long do you plan to stay? Do you mind giving equity to someone else for that period.
I currently own. I also paid it off ASAP (8 years). I now have well over 200k in equity and no payment. I live basically for 'free' in my house. The day I paid it off was like giving myself a 1500 dollar per month raise. I doubled my net income with that one move. At the time I bought I was paying 900 a month (a figure that was set to go up 50). That was 15 years ago. That means I would have given someone 160k in equity and still have to find a place to live. For basically 100k I bought a place to live AND have 200k in equity. At the 1200 the place is asking for today that would be about 90 months from today that I paid extra. I pay a dude 50 bucks a month to mow my yard it looks like a putting green. I only pay for it because he is a master at it. I can do it myself but looks 'crummy'.
My ROI was years ago.
For anything longer than 2-3 years you are almost always better off buying. If that option is not available because of the price of land there then you should not live there. You can not afford it. You never will unless you come into lottery money (and that is stupid rare).
I am looking at the high end of 800k in total assets right now. When I started I had 4k in cash to my name and 2k in student debt. I *always* buy if I can. Then use the hell out of it (my car is 14 years old and I bought it new). At worst I have to resell it. Buy used, then resell, you usually ROI very quickly on everything.
People who advocate renting always make simple chores look like infomercial level drama problems. They are not that bad. Just consider it a ROI problem.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:48PM
That doesn't really work out so well. There are no rent controls in most markets and developers aim for the top income earners leaving everybody else to fend for themselves over a dwindling number of units. The only places where that isn't happening tend to be places that are dieing. No jobs or poor quality jobs and people not wanting to move there. Think places like Detroit where there's few people moving in and people who have a chance elsewhere are taking it.
Around here, moving out of the city limits introduces a gap. I can get a bus pass for about $100 a month for most of my transportation or I can be paying $400 or more for the cost of owning a car. If I move out of the city limits, I would have to own a car, which means that the savings that I'd have by moving would largely evaporate. And as more and more people are priced out of the local market they have to move somewhere, and you wind up having to move further and further away in order to make it affordable.
What really needs to happen is that there needs to be some rent control enacted. There's a vicious cycle where landlords raise their rents and then find people willing to pay, so they raise invest in things that will further increase the amount they can ask the few people remaining to pay. Without some form of rent control, you see that go and go until only the well off can afford to pay and everybody else has to live far away. Around here, we've had decades of people from California moving in and paying too much money for real estate driving the prices up. Many of the apartments that existed when I was a child are now condos and there's more interest in building condos than in building apartments.
It just makes for a shit situation. And this is becoming the norm in places that actually have a growing economy and jobs.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Alfred on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:00PM
I am a sucker for the marketing of my youth and haven't grown past it.(do you still want to paint your car like the Dukes of Hazard too?)
It is the failure of the "system" that I don't have a house.
I make more than my dad but don't realize that means nothing, because inflation.
I am out of work but refuse to change my lifestyle and reduce expenditures by moving somewhere else.
If I am forced to move, because I am unemployed, it will get in the way of something I am doing all day, which isn't a job.
The US is screwed because it doesn't cater to my expectations.
I don't like the renting paradigm but refuse to make the effort to change.
The system is broken. (Well yes but not why you think it is.)
60 and 70 year olds with bad planning are proof of something unrelated.
Dude! You are unemployed and single, you don't need a house, go live in a van with a membership to a health club and a PO Box. Pinch your pennies. Optimize for your situation and be flexible. If you are stubborn your funds will disappear faster and life is stressful. Stop drinking expensive coffee. Be responsible for yourself.
Now, maybe, you have done some or all of that but quit your entitled whining and do something. Maybe I have misjudged you (I know your internet comments are not a comprehensive biography) but I am trying to make a point. Humans have thousands of years of civilized living and complaining about whatever they could. The happy ones are not the whiners.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Friday August 07 2015, @02:22AM
we don't have the time or space to go into the details, but you really don't know much about me and your 'ideas' are borderline offensive.
I do blame the country. we are supposed to increase our standard of life as generations progress. it WAS the american dream and for decades, it was a reality.
the ceo's and governments all got together, decided to burn the country down (slowly) and that was the start of the end.
you ask me to live like a dog. I'm highly offended by that. I paid my dues, I paid my taxes, I worked all my life, got good grades, did my time in companies and yet I have nothing to really show for it. you really think its my fault that the country has screwed the middle class?
damn. you're harsh.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Friday August 07 2015, @07:46AM
I disagree with you that the Illuminati got together and decided to form a cartel to destroy America. But that's not important. What's important is that blaming the country is not going to fix the situation you're unhappy about, because you can't fix the country. Vote for whoever, sure, but realize that you really can't fix things on your own unless you want to go into politics. And even then, you'll have limited power.
What you can do is try to get a job quickly and to adjust your expenses as much as possible in the meantime. No one is asking you to "live like a dog" - except maybe the OP, or maybe he was exaggerating; it's hard to tell. But yeah, cutting Starbucks while you're out of the job is not a bad idea.
If you have nothing to really show for decades of work, you are doing something wrong. Real wages haven't grown for the bottom 80% of the population, but they haven't really gone down either, nonsense about 2-income families being mandatory aside. Maybe you should look into accepting a longer commute or working in an area with a lower cost of living.
I'm not "blaming" you for your situation -- I don't know your situation and I don't know you. I am only saying that you have more power to change your own life than to change the economic system of the US. It's probably more productive for you to spend your time fixing your life rather than railing against all the people you think are messing it up.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday August 07 2015, @01:43PM
yes and yes. To quote myself:
Some people don't see options. I have used these examples with others so I am not picking on you by design. Someone in a big house may not realize they can downsize so I say "live in a van" as an extreme hoping they get the idea they could do with a smaller house or even an apartment. For your specific case in the bay area you are probably already paying for an overpriced tiny apartment.
All the statements are given to be like a slap to the brain to think a little different and realize there are possibilities not considered before. Maybe I should have toned down the hyperbole to be less offensive. But I don't know you, maybe the hyperbole was needed. When I feel cornered in my options I need an outside view to expand my view sometimes.
Yes it is nonsense. It is perfectly possible to live comfortably on a single income in a normal family. This is a case where the way to beat the system is to not play its game and its rules are 2 incomes to keep more money moving so they can make more money off of you. No one says you have spend money but they are experts at suckering you into it. To do a single income with a family you just have to adjust your expectations accordingly. If you try to run your Honda with the dragsters you will always come out behind.
Financial planning has not been taught or sought much in this country. This gives an advantage to those who do know finances. The only wholesale outlet of good financial advice I know of is Dave Ramsey. I could only listen to his show for a week before I got it but everyone should do that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:05PM
Cheaper? Not in the long run, because my house is paid off and that's less money I need to pay monthly. I plan to stay for a long time. Renting simply wouldn't have been a good idea in my case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:50PM
The hilarious thing as soon as baby boomers started to finish paying off the 30 year mortgages EN MASS, all of a sudden the property taxes started to go up to a point where now your taxes are almost exactly what your mortgage plus taxes used to be.... wow what a COINCIDENCE!
Now imagine trying to get a house where your TAX BILL will be as much as your 30 year mortgage payment... It's robbery. It's like paying rent for your own home.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2015, @03:16AM
Clearly, we need to raise taxes on the poor even farther, while ignoring that the effective tax rate on the rich is very small.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:08PM
"Home ownership" does not necessarily mean single-family home, the suburban ideal. It can also mean an apartment or condo in a multi-family dwelling. You can stack a lot of those in a smaller footprint. If you've ever been to Tokyo you've seen what that could look like in the United States and elsewhere. Sadly, however, even those apartments and condos are out of reach for a great many, too.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jdccdevel on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:47PM
From what I've seen around here, renting vs owning often works out to be almost the same, month to month, maybe a little more to own. That's really short sighted though, you need to think long-term. (if you can afford to....)
The difference is equity. When you own, the portion of your mortgage payment that goes towards the principle is really going back into your pocket. You can think of it like "Rent with a built in savings plan". The interest on the mortgage is your true "rent", and the rest is just going into a "house savings".
It can be a bit of a gamble. If the housing market crashes and you have to sell, you will probably take a hit. That said, if you are smart and didn't over-extend yourself, you will still have something even then. On the other hand, if you do it right, you can make a decent profit when you have to sell. (That's how people make a living flipping houses, after all.) And as long as you can make your payments, you don't HAVE to sell.
It's a 20+ year investment. Once you've stuck with it long enough, you've paid for your mortgage, and you don't have to pay anymore! Also, when you're old an can't work anymore, you can use your house equity to support a decent lifestyle until you die.
Using any windfalls to pay off your mortgage quicker is also one of the safest long term investments you can make, since the mortgage rate is always tied to inflation. Through the magic of compound interest, anything you can apply against the mortgage principle will pay itself back many, many times over.
Most people already know all this though, and would love to buy something. The problem is they're living paycheque to paycheque, and can't save up enough for a down payment.
That's the big problem, for far to many. Lots of people can't even save enough to bootstrap their lives out of perpetual poverty, no matter how hard they work.
These are the "Working Poor", and their ranks are growing.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Thursday August 06 2015, @10:34PM
You're right on about the location. In some places it's cheaper to buy a house, so if you can get the loan and down payment there's little reason to rent. However, in other places the rent is less than the mortgage would be, so you can rent the apartment, stash the difference between the rent and the mortgage into some sort of interest paying securities and make a massive downpayment or even just buy it outright. If you're willing to wait long enough, sometimes there's an economic downturn and you can pick up some property for less.
I'm not personally interested in owning a house, I'd probably go the condo route. A decent condo sometimes comes with perks like better parking, a pool or club room.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Friday August 07 2015, @07:30AM
Renting is almost always more expensive. You have to pay the mortgage plus professional maintenance that you could do more cheaply yourself plus profit for the landlord. You can't even switch utility supplier to get a better deal. It will always be more than you would pay to own the same property yourself, otherwise the landlord would be losing money.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday August 07 2015, @08:57AM
you must not have had the kinds of landlords I have had.
they put NO money into maintenance. what 'maint' they did, they did themselves, they fucked it up and ruined things. one time, the landlady tried to bilk me for over $400 on 2 items that had no damage at all. but oh - during the winter, the heater failed, it costed $400 to fix, and when I moved out 6mos later, yeah, I got a mystery $400 bill for things that were entirely fabricated (false, fraud).
if you live in a large complex, it might be maintained professionally. if you live in a house that a private owner is renting out, oh man, you are mostly on your own and those landlords tend to be unwilling ones (ie, they 'had' to move to put their little snowflakes into a 'better school' and they found they could not sell their first house, so they rent it out. but they have no rental property experience and they often don't even know basic US laws and customs.)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 07 2015, @01:08PM
What savings do you have when student loans you incurred to get that job siphon all of it away? What margin do you have when you're living in a market that pays salaries high enough to clear anything over your student loan payments, but then siphons it away again in higher cost of living?
I'm frankly surprised to see so many giving TheGratefulNet so much flak for what he's said. The only thing I can figure is it's coming from millenials who still believe the marketing hype. It's tragic that given how much inflation occurred in the cost of higher education over the last 20 years, they're even more screwed than the generations that immediately preceded them.
What TheGratefulNet is saying resonates because he's talking about something systemic. It's not his individual fault that his circumstances are what they are. He, like millions of others, have played by the rules and has even gone above and beyond by tackling a technical career that most couldn't manage or even want to try at. Yet, here he is.
Other posters have doubted there is an Illuminati somewhere planning the destruction of the American middle class (and the middle classes of other countries as well), but there is. I have seen it. I have been in the salons and the private clubs of the ultra-wealthy on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. I have sat in meetings at the top echelons of government and the UN (with American presidents, no less). I have heard their conversations and felt their attitude drip from everything they say and do. It's not as formal and defined as a meeting of Dr. Evil with his minions; it's more accurate to describe it as an Illuminati culture. You can watch the deals being cut with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge that echoes with the sound of 100,000 innocent civilians having their lives and fortunes vaporized. In everything they do there's an undercurrent of rapacious greed, lust for power, and evil. And it would shock and disillusion the thousands of starry eyed kiddies out there to know that all sides, right-wing, left-wing, whatever, all take exactly the same actions while speaking honeyed words of "doing the right thing."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SecurityGuy on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:31PM
The bay area is not the American system. Sometimes people seem to choose to live in really expensive areas and then complain that things cost too much. Moving elsewhere may help.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday August 06 2015, @08:28PM
Precisely this. I live in Phoenix and make a comfortable living. If I were to take a job in the bay area for 2x my current salary, I wouldn't be able to afford a house. Maybe a small townhouse or condo, but nothing close to the single family home with a decent sized yard that I have here.
Seriously, move out of the major population centers in California. It's too expensive to live there. And if you don't like Phoenix, good. There are a lot of other options and I don't want any more people to move here anyway.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday August 07 2015, @02:29AM
so, I'm supposed to leave the concentration of the whos-who of tech companies to move to - where, again?
I really don't understand that kind of thinking. if you don't want to live in the middle of computer-tech-ville, fine. that's your choice. but I do prefer to be in the middle of the action and for the first 20 years of my stay here, it was keeping all of us alive. I only have started seeing this decimation of the working class during the last 15 years. before that, it was heaven here. great jobs, great companies, good incomes, people had disposable income, life was good.
things changed. it was not We The People who made the change. I fail to see why We The People are not being told 'well, this place is for the 1% now; you must leave you middle class scum, you'.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday August 07 2015, @05:57AM
It's simple market economics, not some sort of conspiracy. Yes, being near a concentrated hub of economic activity has its benefits, but that comes at a price. One that you seem to be finding out is too high right now. Twenty years ago when Silicon Valley was just starting it was reasonably affordable and then those tech companies outgrew the local supply of talent. It was a great opportunity for educated people to move in and they did. That increased the demand for housing and that started to drive up the cost of living with incomes keeping or exceeding pace, which made the area even more attractive. Now the demand is so high for housing that it's outpacing what even those tech giants can afford to pay their workforce, therefore lowering the net affordability. Essentially its an overshoot after a rapid growth phase. That problem will eventually resolve itself. Some of the companies are going to decide that the area is too expensive and move out or smaller ones may just close up shop. It will likely still be a tech center for decades to come, but it'll never be quite like it was at the peak of the boom. I guess you can try to ride it out paying that high cost of living until the area stabilizes, but there's a risk that it will last too long and you won't have much opportunity to save for retirement.
I think moving somewhere with a decent (and more diverse) job market with a much lower cost of living is a safer bet. If you think otherwise, that's fine. Your priorities and mine are likely not the same and for you it might make sense to stay. Just understand and prepare for the risks associated with whatever choice you make (which applies to every other major life decision as well).
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday August 07 2015, @02:27AM
moving. so, its 'ok' to leave your home area because the system can't (wont!) support the middle class lifestyle?
I'm a computer hw/sw guy. why the fuck SHOULD I move from the bay area? and what would that solve? I'll have even less companies to pick from, then, I'll have to leave my home and start all over again and I'm not sure WHY that is considered an ok option.
go tell a ceo that he has to leave his home. go ahead. see if he's willing.
so, why is it ok to ask ME to leave the area I now consider my home?
sorry, but I don't buy that. I'm not taking the blame for a broken economy where I'm not the only one in this situation. our middle class is being robbed and yet you put the blame on us, somehow?
"just move away!"
yeah, like that's really going to fix this economy. that's no solution! and its asking too much of people. we have - this country - made a lot of progress over the last 200+ years. why is it ok to start going backwards, now? I don't get that thinking.
I wish there was just a wee bit more compassion for those who were fucked by the system instead of saying 'sucks to be you!'.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Friday August 07 2015, @05:48PM
Yes, absolutely. I have family that live in a long term impoverished area of the country. The branch of the family that left ~60 years ago is better off (financially, anyway). I don't know where you (and others) get the idea that you can dictate that every region of the country is equally affluent, but it doesn't work that way. You happen to live in a place that has a high cost of living, the inverse problem my poorer extended family has. I do actually have compassion for you, it's just that my having compassion for you isn't actually any help at all to you or me. You can't make housing in the bay area cheaper. You can move. You don't like that housing is expensive, and you don't want to move. I'm not sure what you think anyone can do for you.
What I see is actually that happening all the time. The non-managment people can typically just find another job locally. The director level and above typically move to another state when finding a new job.
No, it's exactly the solution. The bay area is expensive because it's in high demand. If people aren't willing to pay the high cost of living, it'll come back down.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Thursday August 06 2015, @06:57PM
You write: "I make 2x of what my father did, but I may never afford a house in a tech-center of the country"
In another reply to your post, an AC points out: if you cannot afford to buy where you are (the Bay Area), you could always live somewhere else. It's not about what you make, it's the bit about "...afford a house in a tech-center of the country".
We used to live in a desirable city center. As you say, prices were pretty crazy. Now we live in a little town about 45 minutes away from the city. Housing prices are maybe 1/3 as much; the trade-off is the commute. It's a choice that anyone can make. You can carry it even farther, and change jobs. Move to New Mexico, or Montana, or Ohio. The pay will be somewhat less, the living costs are vastly less.
tl;dr: Living in a high cost area is a choice.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday August 07 2015, @02:34AM
lets talk about what else you have to change when you move.
I hear a lot of talk about moving to 'red states'. I'm a very progressive liberal person. how well will it work out for a guy like me to move to a conservative red state?
you think that sounds good to me? move to a place where, if you're not christian and white and some other things, you're not accepted?
I live in the bay area for many reasons, but one main one is that acceptance of those who do NOT believe in god. it is not a step-up for a guy like me to move to the deep south or midwest, for example. people do not accept you if you are not one of them. I see no good reason to live there among folks like that.
but I'm told to 'just move' because its cheaper.
no. I do not want to live in such places. and being forced out of your chosen area is NOT in ANY WAY an acceptable solution for an industrialized and modern (and still VERY RICH) country like the US.
I'm mad because we are going backwards. well, some of us are. the 1% are going forward at the highest rate in history. but its because WE are being forced to pay for them and send our income their way. transfer of wealth is evil and telling me to 'just accept it and leave' is not a solution anyone should be proud of.
this is not the fucking third world!!!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by OwMyBrain on Friday August 07 2015, @03:01PM
you think that sounds good to me? move to a place where, if you're not christian and white and some other things, you're not accepted?
I live in the bay area for many reasons, but one main one is that acceptance of those who do NOT believe in god. it is not a step-up for a guy like me to move to the deep south or midwest, for example. people do not accept you if you are not one of them. I see no good reason to live there among folks like that.
You act as though states are a homogeneous group of hive-minded group-think drones. Are you telling me there are no conservatives in California? I'm an Atheist and I've lived in Atlanta for over 20 years. Your fear of not being accepted for not being a Christian fundamentalist is extremely ignorant. Sure, there are people like that, but they're easily ignored. I'm also sure you'll find those kind of people in CA as well. After all, large geographical areas are diverse and full of many different kinds of people.
Even in the deep south, we get the same 4chan and reddit and Internet debauchery that you do. Plus, you have the advantage of being in the tech industry. Most people I work with as a programmer tend to lean left (maybe there's some correlation with logical thinkers and liberalism ;)
Really, I don't see any reason why you'd have a hard time being an atheist here unless you're walking up to random people and saying "Your God is dead" or whatever. Sure, you may be a minority, but aw hell, just don't be afraid to be around people that aren't just like you.
And the cost of living is pretty attractive.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 06 2015, @07:05PM
That's exactly right, and a parallel trend line is student loan debt which is destroying the ability of the young to ever build equity. That's equity that could be used to anchor families, neighborhoods, all the things we associate with a stable, functioning society. It's also equity that could be used to start new businesses that generate new advances and jobs.
All that gets thrown away so that the financial system can extract all wealth from everyone and secret it away in numbered accounts offshore to keep a very, very small handful of bankers in hookers and blow.
Washington DC delenda est.