Why Young People are Becoming Socialists in One Graph

phattonez · Jun 18, 2019

jimbo said:
Based on 35 years in the home loan business, I can tell you that very few, if any, foreclosures result in the bank showing a profit. The bank hopes to recover at least a portion of their original investment.

I'm well aware of that. They'd rather not hold onto the property, and so are willing to part with the property at a lower cost to recoup some of their investment and then keep on investing. The point remains, the bank is generally in far better shape than the lender who lost his home.

Next answer. It's not the business of "we" to raise wages. The best "we" can do is to attempt to provide a favorable environment for business to flourish. Thriving businesses hire people and are willing to pay more to the ones they have. Business growth is not capped. The labor force, is finite. More growth means more need for labor, which means more competition labor.

Tariffs are a mixed blessing. Higher tariffs mean higher prices, which means less product sold. For their role the government scrapes 25% off the top.

Tariffs also mean higher wages. It's amazing that the same people who years ago were complaining about offshoring and exploitation of foreign labor now are against the very policy that would solve these issues (not that this is necessarily you)!

jimbo · Jun 18, 2019

phattonez said:
So where is the loss in the event of a default? The bank gets the house, so where is the risk?

1. Curtail immigration.
2. Erect tariffs on goods that we can make ourselves.

If we can make it ourselves, then there's no reason to buy it from other nations.

Are you kidding? A few years back I bought a building from a bank that formerly had a $235 K loan which they were forced to foreclose. I bought the building for $79 K. A bank owned property is not necessarily a favorable asset. Most aren't. Walk into any bank. Ask to see the REO list. Make an offer. More often than not you'll be the proud owner of half or more. I've bought others.

phattonez · Jun 18, 2019

jimbo said:
Are you kidding? A few years back I bought a building from a bank that formerly had a $235 K loan which they were forced to foreclose. I bought the building for $79 K. A bank owned property is not necessarily a favorable asset. Most aren't. Walk into any bank. Ask to see the REO list. Make an offer. More often than not you'll be the proud owner of half or more. I've bought others.

A nationwide housing depreciation event isn't your typical foreclosure.

jimbo · Jun 18, 2019

phattonez said:
I'm well aware of that. They'd rather not hold onto the property, and so are willing to part with the property at a lower cost to recoup some of their investment and then keep on investing. The point remains, the bank is generally in far better shape than the lender who lost his home.

Tariffs also mean higher wages. It's amazing that the same people who years ago were complaining about offshoring and exploitation of foreign labor now are against the very policy that would solve these issues (not that this is necessarily you)!

No borrower is in any danger of losing his home as long as he pays his contractural obligations. I honestly don't understand why you don't get this issue. Banks seldom break even on foreclosed properties.

While tariffs nearly always result in higher prices and therefore less goods sold, it does not necessarily result in higher wages. There are other alternatives. More automation. More imported labor willing to work for half or less. Simply doing without the item and/or finding alternatives. Buying the Focus rather than the Mercedes.

CLAX1911 · Jun 18, 2019

phattonez said:
And this isn't even looking at a constant population. The workforce is older and more experienced, and we have a lower percentage of people working.

If you want to guarantee a socialist revolution, make sure that no one can afford basic necessities.

Aren't you a socialist?

jimbo · Jun 18, 2019

phattonez said:
A nationwide housing depreciation event isn't your typical foreclosure.

I know that. Do you have a point?

You're typical foreclosure is not a moneymaking project for the bank either.

phattonez · Jun 18, 2019

jimbo said:
No borrower is in any danger of losing his home as long as he pays his contractural obligations.

:roll:

I honestly don't understand why you don't get this issue. Banks seldom break even on foreclosed properties.

Nor do they lose as much as you think that they do. They get to keep any interest that they collected, and the amount that the homeowner pays at first are almost all interest rather than principle. Further, if there is any debt forgiven by the bank, the homeowner is left with a tax bill on top of losing his home!

While tariffs nearly always result in higher prices and therefore less goods sold, it does not necessarily result in higher wages. There are other alternatives. More automation. More imported labor willing to work for half or less. Simply doing without the item and/or finding alternatives. Buying the Focus rather than the Mercedes.

Way ahead of you there. I'd also like to see immigration restricted until our labor force participation rate goes up and wages start risign significantly. There is no good reason to buy from overseas those goods that we can just as easily make here.

phattonez · Jun 18, 2019

jimbo said:
I know that. Do you have a point?

You're typical foreclosure is not a moneymaking project for the bank either.

That's not my point. My point is that there is no comparison between the risk taken by the borrower and the lender. The lender loses possibly a fraction of what they lent, because they get to sell the property and keep any interest that he made. The borrower loses a roof over his head. So how can you demand interest payments that are more than the value of the home over time, when at worst you're going to lose just a fraction of your investment? The reward far exceeds the risk.

Individual · Jun 18, 2019

phattonez said:
I see that you only apply this to able bodied people. So why do you still value those who aren't able bodied? Do they have some dignity beyond their productive capacity?

What would you prefer be done with them?

phattonez said:
You said that you want to limit the growth of future generations based on what WE need. You used the word "we." If you want to phrase it differently, then please go ahead.

Just replace "we need" with "is needed".

phattonez said:
We're not exactly nearing starvation, so it's hard for me to believe that you're looking out for the survival of future generations.

So you just feel that more people are needed to consume what we are capable of producing?

Individual · Jun 19, 2019

phattonez said:
So they end up having to pay some transaction fees to sell the property. That's a few thousand dollars, up to a few tens of thousands of dollars. Yet people are paying HUNDREDS of thousands in interest. So this doesn't explain it.

Don't borrow money and you won't have to pay any interest.

phattonez said:
I shouldn't be complaining about the fact that my generation's wages are substantially lower than those of my parents? Hey, at least I'm richer than someone else further back! That makes it okay?

I don't see that to be a fact.

phattonez said:
Paying labor more doesn't mean higher government debts. You're sneaking your own assumptions into my arguments, not defending them, and expecting me to defend an outcome that I don't think would happen. It's just a more complex strawman.

Are you saying that paying labor more would have no effect on the pricing of things we consume?

phattonez said:
It clears their debts.

Please explain how inflation clears debts.

phattonez · Jun 19, 2019

Individual said:
What would you prefer be done with them?

I value all human life. You seem to value current life more than future life, so you seem to have some other criteria for determining value.

Just replace "we need" with "is needed".

So you just feel that more people are needed to consume what we are capable of producing?

Define what is needed.

phattonez · Jun 19, 2019

Individual said:
Don't borrow money and you won't have to pay any interest.

Your options are to buy a house, which will require a loan; rent, where you pay the landlord's interest; or go homeless, which isn't a real option. There's no way around it.

I don't see that to be a fact.

It's absolutely a fact and I've shown you this multiple times.

Are you saying that paying labor more would have no effect on the pricing of things we consume?

It would, but you're assuming that capital would be getting its same windfall that it's currently getting. You have no good reason to assume that.

Please explain how inflation clears debts.

Because you're now able to pay back the loan with easier to obtain dollars, while the amount of the loan is fixed. Say you have a loan for $100,000, but inflation is 100% per year and you make $50,000. By next year your entire salary could pay back that loan. After a few years of this paying back the loan is trivial. An extreme example to be sure, but it proves the point that inflation clears debts.

Individual · Jun 19, 2019

phattonez said:
I value all human life. You seem to value current life more than future life, so you seem to have some other criteria for determining value.

Placing an irrational/unreasonable value on current life is only making it more difficult for future generations.

phattonez said:
Define what is needed.

A gradually decreasing population would be a good start.

Individual · Jun 19, 2019

phattonez said:
Your options are to buy a house, which will require a loan; rent, where you pay the landlord's interest; or go homeless, which isn't a real option. There's no way around it.

Or you could just remain living with your parents, helping them while you save enough to provide for your own means. Or you could share costs with another/others until you can afford to live on your own. A second job never hurts either, there's no law prohibiting you from working more than 40 hours each week.

phattonez said:
It's absolutely a fact and I've shown you this multiple times.

There are facts and there are facts.

phattonez said:
It would, but you're assuming that capital would be getting its same windfall that it's currently getting. You have no good reason to assume that.

I have no reason to assume otherwise, based on observing the last more than 80 years.

phattonez said:
Because you're now able to pay back the loan with easier to obtain dollars, while the amount of the loan is fixed. Say you have a loan for $100,000, but inflation is 100% per year and you make $50,000. By next year your entire salary could pay back that loan. After a few years of this paying back the loan is trivial. An extreme example to be sure, but it proves the point that inflation clears debts.

Now you're just being comical.

phattonez · Jun 19, 2019

Individual said:
Placing an irrational/unreasonable value on current life is only making it more difficult for future generations.

You're dodging the question by stating what you don't value. Tell me what you do value so we can have a discussion about it.

A gradually decreasing population would be a good start.

Why?

phattonez · Jun 19, 2019

Individual said:
Or you could just remain living with your parents, helping them while you save enough to provide for your own means. Or you could share costs with another/others until you can afford to live on your own. A second job never hurts either, there's no law prohibiting you from working more than 40 hours each week.

George Bailey talking to Mr. Potter in It's a Wonderful Life:

You... you said... what'd you say a minute ago? They had to wait and save their money before they even ought to think of a decent home. Wait? Wait for what? Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they're so old and broken down that they... Do you know how long it takes a working man to save $5,000? Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn't think so. People were human beings to him. But to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they're cattle. Well in my book, my father died a much richer man than you'll ever be!

There are facts and there are facts.

And since this fact is inconvenient for you, you want to ignore it.

I have no reason to assume otherwise, based on observing the last more than 80 years.

Capital has been getting more than it used to for at least the past two decades, and even more than even further back than that. What's wrong with taking it back to the proportion it used to get in 1999? Is this really so radical?

Now you're just being comical.

No, that's exactly how inflation dissolves debts. For instance, after the German hyperinflation homeowners received a windfall (because their home value increased with the inflation) while banks suffered (because they were getting paid in grossly devalued dollars relative to their initial investment).

Individual · Jun 20, 2019

phattonez said:
You're dodging the question by stating what you don't value. Tell me what you do value so we can have a discussion about it.
I've not dodged you question at all, nor did I state what I don't value.

Why?

It would reduce the impact we humans have upon our environment, less air pollution, less water pollution, less trash, less unemployment, less deforestation, less crime, less wildlife extinction, less cause of global warming.

Individual · Jun 20, 2019

phattonez said:
George Bailey talking to Mr. Potter in It's a Wonderful Life:

You... you said... what'd you say a minute ago? They had to wait and save their money before they even ought to think of a decent home. Wait? Wait for what? Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they're so old and broken down that they... Do you know how long it takes a working man to save $5,000? Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn't think so. People were human beings to him. But to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they're cattle. Well in my book, my father died a much richer man than you'll ever be!

Life can be wonderful, it depends on what you do with it.

phattonez said:
And since this fact is inconvenient for you, you want to ignore it.

I only ignore facts which are not facts.

phattonez said:
Capital has been getting more than it used to for at least the past two decades, and even more than even further back than that. What's wrong with taking it back to the proportion it used to get in 1999? Is this really so radical?

Then take advantage of it while you can.

phattonez said:
No, that's exactly how inflation dissolves debts. For instance, after the German hyperinflation homeowners received a windfall (because their home value increased with the inflation) while banks suffered (because they were getting paid in grossly devalued dollars relative to their initial investment).

So banks collapsed while home owners became immensely wealthy?

Obscurity · Jun 20, 2019

EMNofSeattle said:
No young people are becoming socialist because they're being brainwashed in liberal schools.

Housing is expensive because socialist universities push out "urban planners" who occupy the bureaucracy, set the land use rules, enforce permit regulations, and do whatever they want without oversight from voters.

A good example is Washington's 1992 Growth Management Act, to give people trees to look at the supply of buildable land was severely limited and both sprawl and denisty were curtailed.

Complete and utter nonsense.

What a steaming pile this comment is.

phattonez · Jun 20, 2019

Individual said:
It would reduce the impact we humans have upon our environment, less air pollution, less water pollution, less trash, less unemployment, less deforestation, less crime, less wildlife extinction, less cause of global warming.

So is the environment more important than human life? Is material wealth more important?

phattonez · Jun 20, 2019

Individual said:
Life can be wonderful, it depends on what you do with it.

So with whom do you agree? George Bailey or Mr. Potter?

I only ignore facts which are not facts.

And median male incomes being flat to negative for 50 years is a fact.

Then take advantage of it while you can.

When this is arguably the reason for wages being negative to flat for 50 years? That would be wrong.

So banks collapsed while home owners became immensely wealthy?

Essentially, yes.

Individual · Jun 21, 2019

phattonez said:
So is the environment more important than human life? Is material wealth more important?

Is not all human life affected by the environment in which we live? Each human life is not equal in value. A doctor is more valued by an injured person than someone with no medical training. Our value to one another varies based upon our needs/wants at the time. We may at time find some people entertaining, but lacking any beneficial value.

Individual · Jun 21, 2019

phattonez said:
So with whom do you agree? George Bailey or Mr. Potter?

Neither.

phattonez said:
And median male incomes being flat to negative for 50 years is a fact.

Does that median income figure include every persons income, or just wage earners?

phattonez said:
When this is arguably the reason for wages being negative to flat for 50 years? That would be wrong.

Then become self employed, or start a business.

phattonez said:
Essentially, yes.

Then we should strive for hyperinflation and more bank collapses?

Individual · Jun 21, 2019

phattonez said:
And median male incomes being flat to negative for 50 years is a fact.

When this is arguably the reason for wages being negative to flat for 50 years? That would be wrong.

Median income
Dec 31, 2016 59,039.00
Dec 31, 2015 56,515.84
Dec 31, 2014 53,657.47
Dec 31, 2013 51,939.48
Dec 31, 2012 51,016.86
Dec 31, 2011 50,053.97
Dec 31, 2010 49,275.88
Dec 31, 2009 49,776.75
Dec 31, 2008 50,303.00
Dec 31, 2007 50,233.08
Dec 31, 2006 48,200.96
Dec 31, 2005 46,326.29
Dec 31, 2004 44,333.89
Dec 31, 2003 43,317.83
Dec 31, 2002 42,409.12
Dec 31, 2001 42,228.26
Dec 31, 2000 41,990.29
Dec 31, 1999 40,696.14
Dec 31, 1998 38,885.13
Dec 31, 1997 37,005.14
Dec 31, 1996 35,492.02
Dec 31, 1995 34,076.14
Dec 31, 1994 32,263.76
Dec 31, 1993 31,240.78
Dec 31, 1992 30,635.79
Dec 31, 1991 30,125.73
Dec 31, 1990 29,943.18
Dec 31, 1989 28,906.19
Dec 31, 1988 27,224.92
Dec 31, 1987 26,061.08
Dec 31, 1986 24,896.95
Dec 31, 1985 23,618.12
Dec 31, 1984 22,414.82
Dec 31, 1983 20,885.13
Dec 31, 1982 20,171.02
Dec 31, 1981 19,073.98
Dec 31, 1980 17,710.01
Dec 31, 1979 16,461.02
Dec 31, 1978 15,063.98
Dec 31, 1977 13,571.88
Dec 31, 1976 12,685.90
Dec 31, 1975 11,800.01
Dec 31, 1974 11,196.91
Dec 31, 1973 10,511.92
Dec 31, 1972 9,696.91
Dec 31, 1971 9,027.96
Dec 31, 1970 8,733.97
Dec 31, 1969 8,389.04
Dec 31, 1968 7,743.02
Dec 31, 1967 7,142.97

Lord of Planar · Jun 21, 2019

Individual said:
Median income
Dec 31, 2016 59,039.00
Dec 31, 2015 56,515.84
Dec 31, 2014 53,657.47
Dec 31, 2013 51,939.48
Dec 31, 2012 51,016.86
Dec 31, 2011 50,053.97
Dec 31, 2010 49,275.88
Dec 31, 2009 49,776.75
Dec 31, 2008 50,303.00
Dec 31, 2007 50,233.08
Dec 31, 2006 48,200.96
Dec 31, 2005 46,326.29
Dec 31, 2004 44,333.89
Dec 31, 2003 43,317.83
Dec 31, 2002 42,409.12
Dec 31, 2001 42,228.26
Dec 31, 2000 41,990.29
Dec 31, 1999 40,696.14
Dec 31, 1998 38,885.13
Dec 31, 1997 37,005.14
Dec 31, 1996 35,492.02
Dec 31, 1995 34,076.14
Dec 31, 1994 32,263.76
Dec 31, 1993 31,240.78
Dec 31, 1992 30,635.79
Dec 31, 1991 30,125.73
Dec 31, 1990 29,943.18
Dec 31, 1989 28,906.19
Dec 31, 1988 27,224.92
Dec 31, 1987 26,061.08
Dec 31, 1986 24,896.95
Dec 31, 1985 23,618.12
Dec 31, 1984 22,414.82
Dec 31, 1983 20,885.13
Dec 31, 1982 20,171.02
Dec 31, 1981 19,073.98
Dec 31, 1980 17,710.01
Dec 31, 1979 16,461.02
Dec 31, 1978 15,063.98
Dec 31, 1977 13,571.88
Dec 31, 1976 12,685.90
Dec 31, 1975 11,800.01
Dec 31, 1974 11,196.91
Dec 31, 1973 10,511.92
Dec 31, 1972 9,696.91
Dec 31, 1971 9,027.96
Dec 31, 1970 8,733.97
Dec 31, 1969 8,389.04
Dec 31, 1968 7,743.02
Dec 31, 1967 7,142.97

I'm sure he meant adjusted for actual costs of living and just didn't specify. I would agree relative wages to costs have gone down.

I was making about 17% more in 1978 than average, and even higher of a percentage in 2016.

Why Young People are Becoming Socialists in One Graph

phattonez

Catholic

jimbo

phattonez

Catholic

jimbo

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all

jimbo

phattonez

Catholic

phattonez

Catholic

Individual

Individual

phattonez

Catholic

phattonez

Catholic

Individual

Individual

phattonez

Catholic

phattonez

Catholic

Individual

Individual

Obscurity

phattonez

Catholic

phattonez

Catholic

Individual

Individual

Individual

Lord of Planar