on Bush and his crashes

Tom Sherman wrote:
But how many of the purchasers of these new, larger houses had capital
in the form of a smaller, older residence that they could sell to
partially finance the new residence?

my folks didn't (bought their first home in their late 60s). none of my
friends did. i can't believe that my world is the exception. everyone's
been buying houses for the past 7 years.

If one has no inherited wealth (including financial support from living
relatives) but comes from the lower classes, it will take a long time
for even a person of above average ability and determination to achieve
middle class status, as the barriers are considerable.

the primary fiscal barrier is funding college. i dunno about being from the
lower classes (you'll need to define that) but i received no inheritance nor
support from my family after 18, yet was able to put myself through college
and grad school and eke out a living that's easily at least middle class
without too much trouble (slightly understated .. it was trouble). well,
except for the $35,000 in student loans i just paid off. but there are enuf
people in similiar situations for me to believe it's fairly common. the big
predictor seems to be priorities often conveyed from your parents, the means
at least were there when i was 18.

This is not
something the upper classes want people to understand, as they benefit
from the erroneous belief that all that holds people back is government.
Therefore, they still promote "America as the land of opportunity", even
though that place ceased to exist several decades ago.

now if you'd said upper ruling class ..
--
david reuteler

David Reuteler wrote:

Tom Sherman wrote:

But how many of the purchasers of these new, larger houses had capital
in the form of a smaller, older residence that they could sell to
partially finance the new residence?


my folks didn't (bought their first home in their late 60s).

Compared to wages, housing was more affordable then. I was referring to
the present, in particular the changes in income and wealth distribution
over the last 30 years.

If one has no inherited wealth (including financial support from living
relatives) but comes from the lower classes, it will take a long time
for even a person of above average ability and determination to achieve
middle class status, as the barriers are considerable.


the primary fiscal barrier is funding college. i dunno about being from the
lower classes (you'll need to define that) but i received no inheritance nor
support from my family after 18, yet was able to put myself through college
and grad school and eke out a living that's easily at least middle class
without too much trouble (slightly understated .. it was trouble). well,
except for the $35,000 in student loans i just paid off. but there are enuf
people in similiar situations for me to believe it's fairly common. the big
predictor seems to be priorities often conveyed from your parents, the means
at least were there when i was 18.

Student loan burdens are much greater now than they were 30 years ago.
Tuition has risen greatly at public universities as government funding
has been cut, while non-loan student aid has been cut back severely.
Having to put off the purchase of a house (paying rent instead) means
that a person from the lower class will always be significantly behind
someone from the middle class economically, given similar job
achievements. This (among other factors) puts the lie to the claim of a
"level playing field" that "conservatives" love to claim would exist
were it not for "big, bad government".

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

in article , Eagle Jackson at
wrote on 8/7/04 8:22 PM:

Not because
it's their preference, but because US labor in some cases has priced
itself out of the market.

I was speaking specifically of China. There is no free laobr market there.
The wages are low because they are what the government says they are.
Business likes this a lot. It's why the CIA overthrew Guatemala in 1954.
Guatemala's democratically-elected government allowed wages to based on the
free market. This increased costs to US fruit companies. So, we overthrew
the government and installed one that would cap wages.

In China, we don't need to worry about all that. Our totalitarian friends
keep everything in line for us. China is a businessman's wet dream:
guaranteed poverty wages, no environmental or safety regulations, and a
government willing to crush anyone who tries to change that.

Todd Kuzma
Heron Bicycles
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
LaSalle, IL
http://www.heronbicycles.com/
http://www.tullios.com/

Raoul Duke wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

It should be easy for Shrub to keep in shape, since he has never worked
a real job in his life.

What a dip****. If being Governor of Texas and * PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES * doesn't qualify as a "Real Job", I don't know what does.

No, it doesn't.

A real job involves actual effort or creation of valuable
intellectual property.

Bush's only "effort" is not drinking on camera.

--Blair
"And I'm not sure he's not going to
**** that up."

Todd Kuzma wrote:

in article , Eagle Jackson at
wrote on 8/7/04 8:22 PM:


Not because
it's their preference, but because US labor in some cases has priced
itself out of the market.


I was speaking specifically of China. There is no free laobr market there.
The wages are low because they are what the government says they are.
Business likes this a lot. It's why the CIA overthrew Guatemala in 1954.
Guatemala's democratically-elected government allowed wages to based on the
free market. This increased costs to US fruit companies. So, we overthrew
the government and installed one that would cap wages.

In China, we don't need to worry about all that. Our totalitarian friends
keep everything in line for us. China is a businessman's wet dream:
guaranteed poverty wages, no environmental or safety regulations, and a
government willing to crush anyone who tries to change that.

It sounds like the Chinese need a communist revolution to improve the
lot of the workers.

Of course, the post 1949 Chinese government has never practiced true
communism/Marxism, but merely paid lip service to the ideas as a way to
establish totalitarian control, and has seamlessly moved to fascism over
the last two decades.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

Tom Sherman wrote:

David Reuteler wrote:

Tom Sherman wrote:

But how many of the purchasers of these new, larger houses had capital
in the form of a smaller, older residence that they could sell to
partially finance the new residence?


my folks didn't (bought their first home in their late 60s).

Compared to wages, housing was more affordable then. I was referring to
the present, in particular the changes in income and wealth distribution
over the last 30 years.

Housing was a lot simpler then too - two bedrooms, no or maybe a one
car garage, very basic appliances. While the median cost of housing
has gone up relative to the average wage, I'm not at all sure the cost
of a similar house has.

Student loan burdens are much greater now than they were 30 years ago.

Graduate earning potential is much greater now that it was 30 years
ago too.

Tuition has risen greatly at public universities as government funding
has been cut, while non-loan student aid has been cut back severely.

There are still plenty of progams for those who want to go to college.
Very low cost student loans make perfect sense - I actually prefer
that to a handout since you're enabling the student to make a lot more
money after graduation (so he/she can pay it back with the increase in
income they EARN).

Having to put off the purchase of a house (paying rent instead) means
that a person from the lower class will always be significantly behind
someone from the middle class economically, given similar job
achievements. This (among other factors) puts the lie to the claim of a
"level playing field" that "conservatives" love to claim would exist
were it not for "big, bad government".

Uhhhh, I doubt you'll get much argument that someone with more money
is ahead of someone with less money. But to claim that it's
impossible (or even all that difficult) for a motivated person to
achieve home ownership in the US is just wrong. It may also disgust
you, but home ownership has hit new highs under the GWB
administration. That doesn't mean that everyone will have their own
home - and as often as not it's not just an "income problem" but a
"spending problem".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tom Sherman wrote:
Student loan burdens are much greater now than they were 30 years ago.

ouch. i left college 8 years ago.

Tuition has risen greatly at public universities as government funding
has been cut, while non-loan student aid has been cut back severely.

there was very little non-loan student aid when i was in school. the pell
grant programs even in the 90s didn't exist except for the poorest of the
poor. gsl or stafford loans are how most people get through school and
that's been true since at least the late 80s.

the increase in tuition has, however, been insane. i can't speak for now
but 8 years ago if you wanted to goto college and were willing to bear the
burden of loans you could go (at least to a public university). but yea,
if that stops being true and acccess to education is cut off then what you
say will certainly come to be true and then we're pretty much all ****ed
for a lot of reasons.

Having to put off the purchase of a house (paying rent instead) means
that a person from the lower class will always be significantly behind
someone from the middle class economically, given similar job
achievements.

given similiar job achievements why are they lower class? i'm also $35,000
behind my buddy whose parents put him through school but i'm also many tens of
thousands ahead of the guy born of rich parents who was unfortunate enuf to
be dumb as a brick. point being?

This (among other factors) puts the lie to the claim of a
"level playing field" that "conservatives" love to claim would exist
were it not for "big, bad government".

eh? there is no level playing field w/r/t to access to the elite class
but access to the middle class is not out of reach for the lower class.
we're not talking horatio alger stories here.
--
david reuteler

In article ,
says...
While the median cost of housing
has gone up relative to the average wage, I'm not at all sure the cost
of a similar house has.

That depends on the market. In urban centres it most certainly has.

In 1979, my first house cost 2.25 times my annual salary. I no longer
have the same house or the same job, but I live only a block from my old
house, and it sold again last month for 10 times what I paid for it in
1979.

If the person doing my old job had bought that house last month, he/she
would pay 6 times their annual salary for it.

Similar comparisons can be made on a direct house-to-house basis in most
urban areas with healthy economies, and in most cases, the relative
value of homes has increased.

Custom titanium bikes, on the other hand, have decreased in price in the
past 10 years. ;-)

Rick

Tom Sherman wrote:
my folks didn't (bought their first home in their late 60s).

Compared to wages, housing was more affordable then. I was referring to
the present, in particular the changes in income and wealth distribution
over the last 30 years.

sorry, you misunderstood. my parents just now bought their first house (two
years ago) in their late 60s (of age).
--
david reuteler

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:28:41 GMT, java man
(espressopithecus) wrote:

In article ,
says...
While the median cost of housing
has gone up relative to the average wage, I'm not at all sure the cost
of a similar house has.

That depends on the market. In urban centres it most certainly has.

In 1979, my first house cost 2.25 times my annual salary. I no longer
have the same house or the same job, but I live only a block from my old
house, and it sold again last month for 10 times what I paid for it in
1979.

If the person doing my old job had bought that house last month, he/she
would pay 6 times their annual salary for it.

Similar comparisons can be made on a direct house-to-house basis in most
urban areas with healthy economies, and in most cases, the relative
value of homes has increased.

Custom titanium bikes, on the other hand, have decreased in price in the
past 10 years. ;-)

Rick

Dear Rick,

Your neighborhood (like you) may have improved significantly
in the last quarter-century just by growing older.

Supply and demand in housing often makes older neighborhoods
unreasonably attractive because it's hard for developers to
whip up a charming old neighborhood with lots of trees and
character. People will pay for the ambience an ignore the
deteriorating plumbing, wiring, roofs, streets, foundations,
and other practical aspects.

Almost every day, for example, I ride past the corner house
that I grew up in, and I still enjoy a happy glow at the
thought that some other dumb son-of-a-bitch has to trim its
eighty yards of waist-high hedge. But he's probably quite
happy to pay for the privilege of clipping the silly thing.

Carl Fogel