Oh I read the post you responded to and agree that it is not a simple and I don't think blanket price fixing is a good idea. Maybe for some specific categories of products( essential goods food, med supplies, base materials)But a equation that automatically adjust min wage based on growth of gdp, inflation is a relatively simple and effective solution. $22/hr sounds about right for what is needed to pay a mortgage keep the lights and water on and feed 4 people with just a little left over for quality of life spending. The idea of $30/hr sounds excessive to me but I live in a relatively low cost of living area so that may affect my perception or others who don't to them I would say your don't live in a high cost of living area and work a min wage job.I don't think you understood the post I responded to. It was about price controls and forcing costs onto producers. I didn't say it was a bad plan, just not simple and most times things aren't simple. Usually, simple plans that are announced to solve complex problems turn out to be wrong. Or at best, poorly thought out. I agree with Canna that the accounting and controls would be a bitch to do, so maybe we shelve it while looking for something better.
This article claims MW rose with productivity growth and if it had continued to do so after 1968, MW would be about $22/hr
Yours, I think, is a good suggestion.
lets see what reaction I get to this.....
- Thread starter IndooorGardnerOhio
- Start date
Tax the church
not in most states, with the current housing inflation. maybe if you currently OWN a house sure.
I did buy in 2018 and refi at the hieth of the pandemic interest drops
my spouse is military so it never makes sense for us to buy every 3 -4 years so we just rent right now
meangreengrowinmachine
Well-Known Member
Yep accurate af
The thing I find most troubling is how their net worth explodes in less than a decade,???????, spot on about the parties,the Reps are now largely vomit inducing,used to be a Rep. would serve as a balance to progressive politics that they deemed too progressive and would negotiate,in other words they were still open to helping Americans,the argument was how much,NOW they obstruct and want to demolish the social safety net,Soc. Security,Medicaid,single mothers,housing,food assistance,and anything else that resembles a helping hand. Their fealty to a ignorant,vengeful,narcissistic con artist who himself panders to the extreme right and aspires to extinct our democratic norms. All the opaque money that has infected many members of Congress and the Supreme Court has resulted in the super rich and big corps. holding the puppet strings behind the curtains. Hopefully 2024 will be the expiration date for a certain orange tinted dickhead,one thing is certain,2024 will be VOLATILE,either way.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I live in the middle of east Backscratch and the median house price is $355k. Speak to me about buying one such on $22/.
By the time I’ve saved the requisite $70k down, imagine where prices and interest rates will be.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
on MarsTrump debate?
6'3 and 215lbs???????
Median pice of 355 means a range of 250-750 most places I have seen. If your a first time buyer you don't need 20% more like 3 so no it shouldn't take a fiscally responsible person to long to save 8k. Yes your mortgage will be half your paycheck until you get out of pmi but it is obtainable.
Trump would debate Biden but I doubt Biden or his handlers will let Biden debate Trump.Trump debate?
6'3 and 215lbs???????
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
3%? PMI?? To get good terms on a 30y fixed, ya gotta have the down payment. That was my experience when we bought a house when I was married. And PMI I associate with adjustable, which are too risky for me.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I'm not disputing your financial risk tolerance. In fact, I took out a fixed rate loan with the standard down payment. No regrets but it probably cost me quite a bit more than if I had taken out an adjustable rate mortgage and had been less risk averse. Over the past 20 or so years, adjustable rate mortgages with non-conventional terms turned out to be good choices for a lot of people.
VA's alternative proposal to conventional fixed loans with large down payments is riskier but one that a lot of people have taken and it worked out for them. A lot depends on the borrower. Also luck. Sometimes people have a great thing going and then divorce or layoff or injury or mistakes happen.
Last edited:
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
After having watched rates in the late 70s/early 80s, I’m pretty risk-averse.
Now that I’m trying to remember, we got our foot in the door at the end of 1990 with an ARM at maybe 10% down, because that was the only way we could get in. We were underwater for a coupla years as a mild recession hit Bay Area house prices. However as soon as it made fiscal sense, we locked in a 30 fixed at lower interest and no more PMI.
Then in ‘98 we had enough equity to refi into a 15 fixed, with enough left over for a nice car.
Soon after that things went a bit sideways for me, and now I rent a modest house I cannot afford to buy. And prices here in Blank Map, CA are surging.
But I have nice memories of homeownership, with the warm fuzzy feeling of living in an appreciating asset. Now I’m experiencing the twin insults of contracting income and rising everything.
In a few years, I’ll have access to my pension, which is not large but should restore some margin of comfort.
Not hating on that view point at all. I activity refused to take on any debt whatsoever until I had a family and a decent car and a stable house was a absolute must. Intrest rates will go up and down buy in your budget now and when they come down refi and feel like you got a raise. I don't think my pmi was adjustable it was a % of the total loan.
There is the issue that housing market have about 6% long term average inflation compared to total inflation being 2%(typically)
I'm not quite as leftist as the OP Bernie is fairly close to my view point. Don't want to see a true socialist country, that just drags everyone down to the bottom.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The trouble with full socialism is that when the means of production are collectivized, who administers them? Quis custodiet custodes?
I would like to see a lot more social democracy though. Distributing the means of production a bit wider than now (and without the dominionists tossing crosses into the works!) would lead to a vastly more vital nation, the one that put a home and a new car in a worker’s reach while sending men to the Moon and back in magnificent hand-stitched aluminum foil rockets.
Our current scheme to distribute and wisely apply wealth is, to put it delicately, fucked in all the wrong holes.
GenericEnigma
Well-Known Member
I'm a bit late to the party but want to throw my hat in on taxation being the solution. Something aggressive, like when Eisenhower was in charge. And on capital gains as well. Not as revenue for the government, but as disincentive to hoard.
One dollar equals one dollar - until it is spent. Then the earner spends that dollar, and on down the line. A dollar spent and circulating actually has the value of five dollars, in macroeconomic terms. (This dynamic must be considered in the context of the minimum wage argument as well.) It will be better for the economy to pay workers than to pay CEOs. I don't care what kind of claptrap paid-off politicians spew about "job creators." Paying workers instead of shareholders will generally be a better investment. Sure, money hoarders invest. But it won't be nearly as economically effective outside of payroll.
Once business owners are making multi-millions in the highest tax bracket, I'm pretty sure most of them would re-invest in their companies before subjecting themselves to a non-loopholed 80%+ tax rate. And I don't want to hear about offshore accounts. A willing political leadership, one not ready to skim off the top, could figure out how to effectively regulate us there. It's not like a strong middle class has never been done before. Start by reversing most of what Reagan did.
One dollar equals one dollar - until it is spent. Then the earner spends that dollar, and on down the line. A dollar spent and circulating actually has the value of five dollars, in macroeconomic terms. (This dynamic must be considered in the context of the minimum wage argument as well.) It will be better for the economy to pay workers than to pay CEOs. I don't care what kind of claptrap paid-off politicians spew about "job creators." Paying workers instead of shareholders will generally be a better investment. Sure, money hoarders invest. But it won't be nearly as economically effective outside of payroll.
Once business owners are making multi-millions in the highest tax bracket, I'm pretty sure most of them would re-invest in their companies before subjecting themselves to a non-loopholed 80%+ tax rate. And I don't want to hear about offshore accounts. A willing political leadership, one not ready to skim off the top, could figure out how to effectively regulate us there. It's not like a strong middle class has never been done before. Start by reversing most of what Reagan did.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I am curious what a willing political leadership (ours working alone; don’t depend on the G20 cooperating) can do about offshoring of money. The opacity of the transfer and location of the money is complete. That opacity is the big selling point made by banking-haven nations.
GenericEnigma
Well-Known Member
It would require some measure of protectionism.
Moving $10,000+ (less if cash) within the U.S. is already carefully tracked. Once an economy is robust, it is desireable to be a part of it (the carrot). Limit that access from bad actors (the stick).
Similar threads
