Philosophy Now Forum

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 4:47 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 4:20 pm

IN 1968 in mum bought a house for £5,500, as a single parent, with a mortage that was 3 times her annual salary. She struggled but was able to buy it on a modest wage with help from my Grandmothers pension to look after the kids.
I sold that house in 2008 for £400,000.
For a person the have bought that same house at 3times their salary they would have had to be earinging £133,333 per annum at a time when the average wage was £28,000.
How many young couples make £130,000 a year? My Mum had a rather ordinary semi-skilled job, which proably would net about £35000 at today's prices.
Why the massive change? Milton Friedman!
This is not "the left"

Obviously, if you want to buy a house in Manhattan, L.A., San Francisco or London you have to fork over the big bucks. ON the other hand, if you want to live in Oklahoma or West Virginia, you can still buy a good house for $150k or far less. I bought my small house for $85k in 1994. It's probably worth $300k today. During that same period, the stock market has gone up 10 fold (standard and poors). IN addition, I've had to pay taxes, interest and upkeep on the house. As more people are working remotely (due to the pandemic and the internet), it might be less necessary to live in areas where housing is expensive.

What you say is not relevant.
Jobs dont pay enough whereever you are. Places with cheap houses do not have work.
What is the point is that all over the western world having adopted the economic theories of Friedman houses have been placed outside the reach of most people.
This is a change over time.
Young people, even those working multiple jobs cannot get a start.
This is because the right wing has led the governments and favoured the few.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 5:10 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 4:50 pm If one buys a house for $10,000 and later sells it for $400,000, one can then use the $390,000 profit to buy a lesser house not a bigger and better one.

You can use the $390k as a down payment, and pay a monthly mortgage (I admit that if you bought a house for $10k, your mortgage payments would have been minimal).

I stand corrected.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 6:52 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 4:47 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 4:20 pm

IN 1968 in mum bought a house for £5,500, as a single parent, with a mortage that was 3 times her annual salary. She struggled but was able to buy it on a modest wage with help from my Grandmothers pension to look after the kids.
I sold that house in 2008 for £400,000.
For a person the have bought that same house at 3times their salary they would have had to be earinging £133,333 per annum at a time when the average wage was £28,000.
How many young couples make £130,000 a year? My Mum had a rather ordinary semi-skilled job, which proably would net about £35000 at today's prices.
Why the massive change? Milton Friedman!
This is not "the left"

Obviously, if you want to buy a house in Manhattan, L.A., San Francisco or London you have to fork over the big bucks. ON the other hand, if you want to live in Oklahoma or West Virginia, you can still buy a good house for $150k or far less. I bought my small house for $85k in 1994. It's probably worth $300k today. During that same period, the stock market has gone up 10 fold (standard and poors). IN addition, I've had to pay taxes, interest and upkeep on the house. As more people are working remotely (due to the pandemic and the internet), it might be less necessary to live in areas where housing is expensive.

What you say is not relevant.
Jobs dont pay enough whereever you are. Places with cheap houses do not have work.
What is the point is that all over the western world having adopted the economic theories of Friedman houses have been placed outside the reach of most people.
This is a change over time.
Young people, even those working multiple jobs cannot get a start.
This is because the right wing has led the governments and favoured the few.

Here are some stats. Home ownership in the U.S. has declined, but not by much. Also, I noticed the median VALUE of U.S. homes is only $260k, as opposed to the median price being $395k. I'm not sure why, but probably people who are rich are buying houses, while those who are not are staying in their cheaper houses or renting. (Also, I have no idea which of these stats are credible.)

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/rese ... tatistics/

https://movity.com/blog/home-ownership-statistics/

I've read that the key difference between black and white people's net worth ($) in the U.S. is the difference in home ownership. Black people are far less likely to own their homes -- possibly because of a long tradition of renting, possibly because they lack the money, or possibly because of racial prejudice in mortgage loans.

Also, as more and more jobs become remote, people can live anywhere. Some live in expensive cities for highly paid jobs; others simply like the lifestyle these cities provide (which supports my theory about how we are now less frugal than in the past).

duplicate

I don't care who gets elected if whoever does will bring some semblance of peace to the world and get us all on track to living sustainably or at least leads us to figure out ways to get through climate disaster and ecological breakdown, if that's what's coming down the pike.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 7:33 pm I don't care who gets elected if whoever does will bring some semblance of peace to the world and get us all on track to living sustainably or at least leads us to figure out ways to get through climate disaster and ecological breakdown, if that's what's coming down the pike.

I don't know if it'll be Biden or not, but Trump's biggest concern in all this seems to be with Mexicans crossing the border to pick melons. I mean, you just can't write a better comedy script.

Tim Burton could make a sequel to "Mars Attacks". Maybe call it "Morons Attack".

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 7:33 pm I don't care who gets elected if whoever does will bring some semblance of peace to the world and get us all on track to living sustainably or at least leads us to figure out ways to get through climate disaster and ecological breakdown, if that's what's coming down the pike.

Neither candidate will do that. The world is not a peaceful place, and climate change is now inevitable. The best who can do is deal with it as effectively as possible.

IN general, the President is not a magician who can bring peace to the world, prosperity to the economy, and health to the population. The best he or she can do is avoid wars, tweak the economy in minor ways, and get a better National Health Care System (like every other industrialized country).

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 7:39 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 7:33 pm I don't care who gets elected if whoever does will bring some semblance of peace to the world and get us all on track to living sustainably or at least leads us to figure out ways to get through climate disaster and ecological breakdown, if that's what's coming down the pike.

Neither candidate will do that. The world is not a peaceful place, and climate change is now inevitable. The best who can do is deal with it as effectively as possible.

IN general, the President is not a magician who can bring peace to the world, prosperity to the economy, and health to the population. The best he or she can do is avoid wars, tweak the economy in minor ways, and get a better National Health Care System (like every other industrialized country).

No. But the president can engage in diplomacy, dumbshit.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 7:30 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 6:52 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 4:47 pm

Obviously, if you want to buy a house in Manhattan, L.A., San Francisco or London you have to fork over the big bucks. ON the other hand, if you want to live in Oklahoma or West Virginia, you can still buy a good house for $150k or far less. I bought my small house for $85k in 1994. It's probably worth $300k today. During that same period, the stock market has gone up 10 fold (standard and poors). IN addition, I've had to pay taxes, interest and upkeep on the house. As more people are working remotely (due to the pandemic and the internet), it might be less necessary to live in areas where housing is expensive.

What you say is not relevant.
Jobs dont pay enough whereever you are. Places with cheap houses do not have work.
What is the point is that all over the western world having adopted the economic theories of Friedman houses have been placed outside the reach of most people.
This is a change over time.
Young people, even those working multiple jobs cannot get a start.
This is because the right wing has led the governments and favoured the few.

Here are some stats. Home ownership in the U.S. has declined, but not by much. Also, I noticed the median VALUE of U.S. homes is only $260k, as opposed to the median price being $395k. I'm not sure why,

I think it is because you do not understand what you are typing.

but probably people who are rich are buying houses, while those who are not are staying in their cheaper houses or renting. (Also, I have no idea which of these stats are credible.)

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/rese ... tatistics/

https://movity.com/blog/home-ownership-statistics/

I've read that the key difference between black and white people's net worth ($) in the U.S. is the difference in home ownership. Black people are far less likely to own their homes -- possibly because of a long tradition of renting, possibly because they lack the money, or possibly because of racial prejudice in mortgage loans.

Also, as more and more jobs become remote, people can live anywhere. Some live in expensive cities for highly paid jobs; others simply like the lifestyle these cities provide (which supports my theory about how we are now less frugal than in the past).

More and more jobs are going to China. A bit remote for Americans to commute to.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 7:40 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 7:39 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 7:33 pm I don't care who gets elected if whoever does will bring some semblance of peace to the world and get us all on track to living sustainably or at least leads us to figure out ways to get through climate disaster and ecological breakdown, if that's what's coming down the pike.

Neither candidate will do that. The world is not a peaceful place, and climate change is now inevitable. The best who can do is deal with it as effectively as possible.

IN general, the President is not a magician who can bring peace to the world, prosperity to the economy, and health to the population. The best he or she can do is avoid wars, tweak the economy in minor ways, and get a better National Health Care System (like every other industrialized country).

No. But the president can engage in diplomacy, dumbshit.

True... as long as he's not Trump.

speak softly and carry a big stick...

that is if you didn't leave your stick in Afghanistan; or give it away to "defend" a non-NATO country

-Imp

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 4:14 pm Okay - so this part is true.
But moronically you blame "the left" because you are programmed to do just that.
When did all this start?
1) Milton Friedman writes on his new economics.
2) The big test case is enacted in Chile by General Auguste Pinochet.
3) Thatcher/ Reagan adopt that system.
4) Result mass unemployment. Drop in workers rights. End to union power. Property price on upward tragectory.
5) Massive increases in inequality as home ownership stretches out of the reach of ordinary people.
6) Mrtgage deregulation. boom bust economics. all increases inequality.
7) Left parties are forced to move to the right as media is owned by the rich and parties have to pay their dues to the likes of Murdoch.
whilst the left mitigate some of the damage, the rich continue to grow richer.
9) Increases in homelessness, more zero hour contracts. less medical insurance.

Inflation is the primary cause.

Feminism is a partial cause, because it lowered men's wages. Men are expected to be responsible for house payments and mortgages, not women. Furthermore, Divorce cases favor women, meaning that men's alimony goes toward the house and mortgage, which goes to the woman.

Illegal immigration is a further cause, because it lower's natural citizens' wages.

The Neo-Conservative Right, however, was mostly responsible for shipping high-wage manufacturing and factory jobs overseas or to Latin America.


These are the main reasons why the American Middle Class is now gutted, non-existent, and most young people below age of 50, do not, cannot, or will not afford to buy houses...most will now rely on Inheriting property from their Baby Boomer parents, when they die-off.