[funnyPasds]

Point is for every story you post like that I can counter with something along the opposite line.

Which proves that there is an anti-Bush bias in the MSM. The economic numbers under Bush have been very good.

[Peterli]

i am just wondering, if housing value almost doubles in four years, and income is now where near following the same pattern, then would that mean eventually more people will end up in apartments.. i think that is a reasonable thought. but also housing is going up because more people are buying.. so i bet that once the houses become to expensive.. less people will buy.. and eventually things will go back to normal.. right? so probably we should all sell our houses and buy them again when they are cheap.. heh.

Oh, I think I misinterpreted what you were saying regarding people who already own homes versus renters...

Still, things even out. Say, houses double in value over four years, and the young/renting population can't afford them. Well, then two things happen. (1) The price of houses will tend to dip as demand for them cools off. (2) The price of rentals will increase because of increased demand, making buying a better alternative.

I'm looking to be a first time home-owner myself, so I don't have a lot of experience on the subject firsthand, but I've done a lot of research. My aim is to buy a place I can afford with a fixed loan and then I'll be in a position to ride out any market fluctuations until I'm comfortable selling. I think people get into the most trouble when they get into creative financing, like ARM's or zero-down loans, buy more house than they can afford, and depend on the house to appreciate. Then, if it doesn't, they're hosed - their mortgage payments start to skyrocket and they become desperate to sell. And, I believe that there are enough people doing this at any given time to allow you to find a reasonable deal on a home purchase. If you're willing to do a little fixer-up work, you could always buy a house in foreclosure.

[Alliopeti]

I hear ya'. I was 37 when I bought my house; my first. I know 20-somethings who flip out because they can't find a house they can afford, in a neighborhood worthy of their new BMW...

I was leaning towards renting; I honestly don't think many 20 yr olds would be responsible enough to own a home, not with the taxes, insurance and upkeep.

[Usogwdkb]

I was leaning towards renting; I honestly don't think many 20 yr olds would be responsible enough to own a home, not with the taxes, insurance and upkeep.

I guess it depends on where you live. My daughter (23) and son-in-law (26) bought their home about 2 1/2 years ago. Unfortunately, it flooded but the repairs are almost done!!!

[SmuffNuSMaxqh]

I was leaning towards renting; I honestly don't think many 20 yr olds would be responsible enough to own a home, not with the taxes, insurance and upkeep.

Oh, I was renting (or living aboard ship) at that age, too. But I know plenty of people in their mid-to-late 20's who would certainly like to buy a home, and probably could if they weren't driving a new Denali $1,200.00 suits, and NFL season tickets.

What I see these days is that most younger folks are more interested in having nice stuff now, as opposed to waiting to get more nice stuff (and "stuff" that'll actually appreciate in value) later, when they can actually afford it all...

[JTS_tv]

It must be that "worst economy since the Great Depression" we keep hearing about.

I wonder what this means, though. Give me a sec, don't assume that I'm just blindly attacking.

From what I've heard/read, the very top of the economic ladder is doing ridiculously well, with near-exponential growth in their worth, while the majority is actually losing ground. If the very top saw a huge growth in their value, while most of the rest of us remained stagnant or saw a mild decline, wouldn't that account for this statistic you posted?

If so, wouldn't that actually be a sign of an unsustainable economy, and not a strong one?

[funnyPasds]

I wonder what this means, though. Give me a sec, don't assume that I'm just blindly attacking.

From what I've heard/read, the very top of the economic ladder is doing ridiculously well, with near-exponential growth in their worth, while the majority is actually losing ground. If the very top saw a huge growth in their value, while most of the rest of us remained stagnant or saw a mild decline, wouldn't that account for this statistic you posted?

If so, wouldn't that actually be a sign of an unsustainable economy, and not a strong one?

that is simply not true. Economic growth has been broad based across the entire income spectrum. Real incomes have risen, net worth has risen, unemployment is down, taxes are lower. What more do you want? If the president had a D after his name, this would be hailed as nothing short of an 'economic miracle'.

[JTS_tv]

that is simply not true. Economic growth has been broad based across the entire income spectrum. Real incomes have risen, net worth has risen, unemployment is down, taxes are lower. What more do you want? If the president had a D after his name, this would be hailed as nothing short of an 'economic miracle'.

Strange. I've heard/read quite the opposite. Please (I'm being serious here) if you have information that shows that real wages are up, taxes on the working (that means, say, the bottom 50% of households) are down (significantly), or that the actual number of people out of work is down (unemployment figures are unreliable IMHO), I'd love to read them.

Yes, I'm a liberal. However, I am open to the possibility that things are going well. I'd like to see evidence, if they are.

Here's one thing I saw today that worried me:

February jobs report likely to usher in year of weak hiring - Mar. 8, 2007

Although I do thing this is relevant:

"The bottom line is the economy is advancing at a desirable pace," said Yamarone. "Low inventory levels suggest the shelves and showrooms and warehouses are going to have to be replenished. They'll have to pick up the pace of hiring and refill those depleted inventories."

I just don't know enough to know, and I don't trust most people enough to be able to tell me. It's a difficult situation to be in!

[86GlSqSK]

From what I've observed in life, most people don't "work their asses" off. Furthermore, most people don't put themselves in a position to better their situation. My ex works as a server, and I watched her hang out with an awful lot of "lifers" that would work their 10 hour shifts, bitch about how horrible they had it, and then go out to dinner/drinks every night and spend most of what they had earned. When people like that would bitch in front of me about how they could never "get ahead" in spite of all of their "hard work", it would take some restraint not to roll my eyes at them.

Most people, i. e. the middle class in the US, do work like hell, because they don't put themselves in a position to better their situation.

And the only way to better one's (financial) standing in life is to become a succesful entrepreneur, and that means taking risks.

Most Americans don't become enterpreneurs because they're tremendously risk averse. People who don't make it very far financially do not understand the concept of calculated risk. To them, risk is just bad.

The standard American model of life is. . .be born, go to school, then do one of 5 things. . .

1) Go to college, then get a college level job
2) Join the Armed Forces, then stay there
3) Work a menial job (i. e. McDonald's, dept. store) then work your way up to manager
4) Get a government job thru connections, then keep working at it and retire with a nice pension
5) Become nurse, med secretary, or some other health care assistant

Note that none of the above 5 involves any financial risk (#2, obviously, involves a risk to your life, nevertheless).

What I believe--and this is strictly my opinion so don't yell at me--is that kids should take risks, i. e. chase their dreams, when the're young.

Don't believe me. Here are some names. . .

Michael Dell
Bill Gates
Justin Frankel
Marshal Mathers
Britney Spears
Marc Andreessen

Chasing one's dreams does not entail jumping in the pool unprepared. Hard work and intense preparation is certainly needed.

However, most kids never try to fulfill their childhood dreams because they defeat themselves mentally early on and/or succomb to the low risk path their parents want them to follow (presumably because that's how their parents made it), and consequently, opt for a line of work where they can predictably stay employed (so long as they don't do anything tremendously stupid) and predictably advance.

[Nurse_sero]

yes its kinda cool.. my parents bought thier house 4 yrs ago, now it almost doubled in value. they essentially paid half price for a house. its still going up in value but not as fast as it was before.. damn it was crazy. i say they should sell thier house and buy a new one.. and keep doing it over and over.. soon they would be millionares living in some huge mansion.

Timing is everything, they can either do it now and get in before the bubble bursts or wait until the foreclosures start happening and hop in and buy a couple of cheap ones and then wait until the next bubble and sell. All about timing though.

[86GlSqSK]

From what I've observed in life, most people don't "work their asses" off. Furthermore, most people don't put themselves in a position to better their situation. My ex works as a server, and I watched her hang out with an awful lot of "lifers" that would work their 10 hour shifts, bitch about how horrible they had it, and then go out to dinner/drinks every night and spend most of what they had earned. When people like that would bitch in front of me about how they could never "get ahead" in spite of all of their "hard work", it would take some restraint not to roll my eyes at them.

Most people, i. e. the middle class in the US, do work like hell, because they don't put themselves in a position to better their situation.

And the only way to better your (financial) standing in life is to become a succesful entrepreneur, and that means taking a risk.

The reason that most Americans don't become enterpreneurs is because they're tremendously risk averse. People that don't get very far financially do not understand the concept of calculated risk. To them, risk is just bad.

The American model of life is. . .be born, go to school, then do one of 5 things. . .

1) Go to college, then get a college level job
2) Join the Armed Forces, then stay there
3) Work a menial job (i. e. McDonald's, dept. store) then work your way up to manager
4) Get a government job thru connections, then keep working at it and retire with a nice pension
5) Become nurse, med secretary, or some other health care assistant

Note that none of the above 5 involve any financial risk (#2, obviously, involves a risk to your life, nevertheless).

What I believe--and this is strictly my opinion so don't yell at me--is that kids should take risks, i. e. chase their dreams, when they are young.

Don't believe me. Here are some names. . .

Michael Dell
Bill Gates
Justin Frankel
Marshal Mathers
Britney Spears
Marc Andreessen

Chasing one's dreams does not entail jumping in the pool unprepared. Hard work and intense preparation is certainly needed.

However, most kids never try to fulfill their childhood dreams because they defeat themselves mentally early on and/or succomb to the low risk path their parents want them to follow (presumably because that's how their parents made it), and consequently, opt for a line of work where they can predictably stay employed (so long as they don't do anything tremendously stupid) and predictably advance.

[Nurse_sero]

Yes but are they happy?

[SmuffNuSMaxqh]

And the only way to better one's (financial) standing in life is to become a succesful entrepreneur, and that means taking risks.

That's nonsense. I'm not an entreprenuer, I work for a guitar company. My financial standing is ridiculously better than it was just a few years ago...

Most Americans don't become enterpreneurs because they're tremendously risk averse. People who don't make it very far financially do not understand the concept of calculated risk. To them, risk is just bad.

The standard American model of life is. . .be born, go to school, then do one of 5 things. . .

1) Go to college, then get a college level job
2) Join the Armed Forces, then stay there
3) Work a menial job (i. e. McDonald's, dept. store) then work your way up to manager
4) Get a government job thru connections, then keep working at it and retire with a nice pension
5) Become nurse, med secretary, or some other health care assistant While I disagree that those represent the "standard" model, I'll discuss only #2, as that's where my experience is.

I dropped out of college three months after starting. Seems I had a problem with the fact that I was expected to do more than party all the time. I ended up joining the Navy at age 18. I "stayed there", retiring at age 38.

At age 38, life was far from over. I wasn't real interested in a government job or a job with a defense contractor (both were offered), so i went into music instrument retail. I did that for about three years, until I was hired by my current employer.

I know a lot of people who've retired from the military, get a pension, and move on to a second, and wildly successful, career...

What I believe--and this is strictly my opinion so don't yell at me--is that kids should take risks, i. e. chase their dreams, when the're young.

Don't believe me. Here are some names. . .

Michael Dell
Bill Gates
Justin Frankel
Marshal Mathers
Britney Spears
Marc Andreessen

Chasing one's dreams does not entail jumping in the pool unprepared. Hard work and intense preparation is certainly needed. Oh, I absolutely agree with that, although I look at people like Spears and Eminem as having more luck than anything else; that's just the nature of that particular business...

However, most kids never try to fulfill their childhood dreams because they defeat themselves mentally early on and/or succomb to the low risk path their parents want them to follow (presumably because that's how their parents made it), and consequently, opt for a line of work where they can predictably stay employed (so long as they don't do anything tremendously stupid) and predictably advance. My daughter is 20. I constantly tell her to take risks. Her employer, Anheuser-Busch (they own the theme park where she works) offers a 401K. I always tell her to choose high-risk, high-yield stocks, and forget about the stocks that I might elect for my 401K. The reason being is that, at such a young age, she can afford to lose money more than I can, because she's got time to recoup it if she does lose it. Thus far, at 20, she's doing pretty good. She's sure in better shape, financially, then I was at her age...

[SmuffNuSMaxqh]

Yes but are they happy?

Hey, money can't buy happiness, but it sure makes being miserable easier to tolerate...

[Nurse_sero]

Hey, money can't buy happiness, but it sure makes being miserable easier to tolerate...

I certainly can't disagree with your logic

[Mjxhnapi]

Most people, i. e. the middle class in the US, do work like hell, because they don't put themselves in a position to better their situation.

I would like to hear your opinion as to what qualifies as "working like hell"

[TOD4wDTQ]

$500,000 houses are out of reach for most Americans.

No they're not. Liberals like to think they are because they've long since given up.

Varus

[Mjxhnapi]

$500,000 houses are out of reach for most Americans.

Yeah, $500,000 is rather extreme, but most people don't need a house that costs that much anyway. It's also dependent on where you live. $500,000 in your state is probably fairly common, but jobs also pay significantly more in California to compensate for the cost of living.

$500,000 where I live will practically get you a mansion, but our cost of living is pretty low here.

[TOD4wDTQ]

That's nonsense. I'm not an entreprenuer, I work for a guitar company. My financial standing is ridiculously better than it was just a few years ago...



While I disagree that those represent the "standard" model, I'll discuss only #2, as that's where my experience is.

I dropped out of college three months after starting. Seems I had a problem with the fact that I was expected to do more than party all the time. I ended up joining the Navy at age 18. I "stayed there", retiring at age 38.

At age 38, life was far from over. I wasn't real interested in a government job or a job with a defense contractor (both were offered), so i went into music instrument retail. I did that for about three years, until I was hired by my current employer.

I know a lot of people who've retired from the military, get a pension, and move on to a second, and wildly successful, career...



Oh, I absolutely agree with that, although I look at people like Spears and Eminem as having more luck than anything else; that's just the nature of that particular business...



My daughter is 20. I constantly tell her to take risks. Her employer, Anheuser-Busch (they own the theme park where she works) offers a 401K. I always tell her to choose high-risk, high-yield stocks, and forget about the stocks that I might elect for my 401K. The reason being is that, at such a young age, she can afford to lose money more than I can, because she's got time to recoup it if she does lose it. Thus far, at 20, she's doing pretty good. She's sure in better shape, financially, then I was at her age...

One the best ways to help your daughter strengthen her financial portfolio is to help her buy a house asap. Once she's built some equity she can re-fi, or get a second loan, and invest that money. Put it toward a variable product have her money work for her. Last year I took out a second loan; nothing big only 25k. With diversified investments I conservatively earned 12%. True that may not sound like much; that is unless you understand the power of compound interest. One of the worst financial mistakes people make is thinking that paying off the house is a good thing. Of course I could be talking out of my...I guess it's up to you to decide.

Varus

[Peterli]

Most people, i. e. the middle class in the US, do work like hell, because they don't put themselves in a position to better their situation.

And the only way to better your (financial) standing in life is to become a succesful entrepreneur, and that means taking a risk.

The reason that most Americans don't become enterpreneurs is because they're tremendously risk averse. People that don't get very far financially do not understand the concept of calculated risk. To them, risk is just bad.

The American model of life is. . .be born, go to school, then do one of 5 things. . .

1) Go to college, then get a college level job
2) Join the Armed Forces, then stay there
3) Work a menial job (i. e. McDonald's, dept. store) then work your way up to manager
4) Get a government job thru connections, then keep working at it and retire with a nice pension
5) Become nurse, med secretary, or some other health care assistant

Note that none of the above 5 involve any financial risk (#2, obviously, involves a risk to your life, nevertheless).

What I believe--and this is strictly my opinion so don't yell at me--is that kids should take risks, i. e. chase their dreams, when they are young.

Don't believe me. Here are some names. . .

Michael Dell
Bill Gates
Justin Frankel
Marshal Mathers
Britney Spears
Marc Andreessen

Chasing one's dreams does not entail jumping in the pool unprepared. Hard work and intense preparation is certainly needed.

However, most kids never try to fulfill their childhood dreams because they defeat themselves mentally early on and/or succomb to the low risk path their parents want them to follow (presumably because that's how their parents made it), and consequently, opt for a line of work where they can predictably stay employed (so long as they don't do anything tremendously stupid) and predictably advance.

First of all, becoming a successful entrepreneur is not a matter of "following your dreams" - it's a matter of extremely hard work, risk, luck, and charisma. Most people don't try it, and most who try it fail. And, those who succeed, to a person work much, much harder than some guy who turns the fry-basket at McDonald's forty hours per week.

Encouraging kids to follow their dreams and encouraging them to be entrepreneurs are two very different things. Some children dream of practicing medicine, going into space, or playing sports - none of those goals requires entrepreneurship.

Secondly, you disagreed with my contention that most people don't work their asses off. Simply showing up for a job that sucks and wishing you were doing something else does not constitute "working hard". Unless you're subjecting yourself to apparent bodily harm, any job where you work a 40 hour week is not "hard work", IMO (even something that requires manual labor because your body becomes used to it.

"Hard Work" is a young lawyer, or stock broker putting in 90 hours per week at the firm to get ahead. Hard work is done by someone who flips burgers all day and spends his nights earning an associate's degree to get ahead. Hard work is working two different jobs totaling 80 hours per week.

Most people don't do this. Most people regard their jobs as "hard work" because they don't like them, and they consider it an imposition. But hating one's job does not mean that one is working hard.

Incidentally, it's entirely possible to live a very swanky lifestyle without ever being an entrepreneur. In fact, it happens all the time (read: big name CEO's)