the data points keep piling up.
There are a lot of economists who argue that we should screw up future generations by subsidizing current consumption. The argument is that standards of living are increasing, and therefore, we are entitled to take some of the future generations’ resources to enjoy ourselves. Besides that, some say that NPV of future utility is just worth less because it’s later.
A lot of people behave like this is personal life too. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have so many people borrowing to buy houses, cars, mattresses, etc.
its 1 thing for you to behave that way and for you to suffer the consequences later on. quite another to behave that way and pass it on to future generations that dont deserve to suffer.
All in all, they are still going to have a better life than you. So, I can see why people might argue to even it.
oh wow. thats actually a really good counterargument. to think english kings couldnt even shower every day like we can. plus we can easily watch porno with our water resistant phones.
anyways like i said we should borrow to make people more productive. but we shouldnt borrow so that old people can have some basic lifestyle and healthcare.
All in all, young people have a tendency and ability to borrow from their future selves, though 30y mortgage or student debt paid over 10-20 years. However, this is not possible for old people. So, instead, they borrow/take from future generations.
It’s true that most people I’ve heard argue for generational equality are old guys. However, most prominent economists are old guys, so I don’t know if they are biased or if the selection of writers just makes it look that way.
first meditation, now questioning the nature of happiness. Homies waking up!
is there any time period you wish to go back to vs the present? lets say you kept the same socioeconomic percentile constant. for me no. today is a gift that is why we call it the present.
Nery, you seem to hate on old people a lot. You seem to forget that they worked and paid taxes their entire life, building the country’s infrastructure, military etc and now get to collect on the government benefits they paid into. What’s up with that?
yes but social security was far easier when there were a ton of boomers supporting the few from “great generation”, also back then they died at the appropriate time, but lifespans have increased. so the math doesnt add up for boomers being supported by younger generations only, their benefits need to be reduced or social security needs to be delayed further, or they need to raise taxes on the rich.
also social security is the old poor financed by every working person. it should be the old rich people financing the old poor people since the old rich were the ones who benefitted from them. poor public policy imo.
lastly the us has been in relative decline since the 1950s. the boomer generation lead the way for the us decline.
here’s gundlach:
JEFFREY GUNDLACH: I think what’s happening is, at long last, the millennials are starting to hate the baby boomers. I mean, that’s starting to pull pretty strongly, and it’s about time.
I mean, the policies of the United States have been so bad for so long. I think it was seven or eight years ago, I read an article, it was with Esquire, that we’re really railing against how much money we spend on old people in the United States government system, as opposed to how much we spend on young people. And in that article the ratio was 7 to 1, how much of the budget goes to paying for things for people over 65 compared to paying for things for people under 21-- I can’t remember if it’s 21 or 25, whatever-- but young people.
And if you’re investing in dying people and not investing in the future, you don’t have a very bright future. And so millennials are starting to understand that the baby boomers have all the wealth, and millennials don’t, really. I mean, they can’t afford a house. They’ve got student loan debt. They’ve start to believe, I think, finally, that they kind of got screwed by the system.
Sounds like SS needs reform. Perhaps it should be an income tested benefit, subject to a claw back once a taxpayer income reaches a certain level. (?)
In general, I am not too sympathetic towards increasing benefits levels, since it seems that the average American lives really well nowadays - certainly better than a person in most other countries. For instance, the average home size in the US is now 2600 sf and the average car is over $36k. Personally, I have never lived in a 2600 sf house or bought a $36k car. Should I subsidize people in retirement if they made these spending decisions rather than save and invest their money?
Regarding generational subsidy (young people pay old people) - it’s completely reasonable if everyone can expect the same benefits when it’s their turn. However, as Nery stated, the equation starts to slip with actuarial changes. This creates a long term need for reform, but unfortunately, not the political will to change anything. Once again, Nery shows his true wisdom and I wouldn’t be surprised if he is actually Jeff Gundlach himself!
IIRC, you have lived your whole life in either SF or NYC. In both of those places, a car is unnecessary (and possibly even a PITA), and a 2600 sf house would cost a fortune, in even Ohai’s terms.
If you lived in BFE, a 2600 square foot house and a $36k car are pretty average. My house is over 3,000 square feet and it’s nowhere close to being an “extravagance”.
NO GREENMAN WE DONT WANT TO SUBSIDIZE YOUR MCMANSION LIFE!
I don’t think Greenman’s example changes the argument, since most Americans just buy whatever they can get approved for. Even if housing is cheaper in some places, people who live there still tend to live on their income margin and borrow significantly to subsidize their lifestyles. If people in 3000 sf houses downgraded to 2000 sf, their future finances would still improve.
its actaully kidn of itneresting. rent in la has been moving up. but imo, this is occuring because of 2 reasons. 1 ultra low employment rate. and 2 they keep raising minimum wages. so now even ghetto ass areas in the inner city with all the filth are charging the same rates as very nice suburbian areas with good schools. back then there was a huge difference now, they are practically the same. still a lot of homeless people now though. i wonder what will happen when the economy slows down.
Your question has been answered - see Altered Carbon on Netflix…
In addition, California’s so called “housing crisis” comes mostly from lack of supply, from building codes, lack of space, and other complementary reasons. Because of this, rents might not be very elastic in the event of a downturn. This is particularly problematic in LA, where rents are a very high percentage of income (I think it’s the number 1 or number 2 most expensive place relative to local incomes). As a result of all this, a lot of people will find that they are displaced in a downturn. In the long term, we should see a continued migration to less expensive areas, but in the short term, I don’t know what people will do. LA is for successful people only!
yep. spot on. over here. everyone knows the biggest problem are the nimbys. (not in my neighborhood). essentially nimbys do not want to rezone single family dwelling to multi units for various reasons, traffic, congestion, charge higher rent, or they just like homeless people, but anyways, they usually use a blanket excuse of preserving neighborhood culture or something environmental to prevent any new housing.
right now, if say a person wanted to create a second story or create an additional unit, you literally have to get a signature from the entire street. anyways a new law was recently passed that was supposed to allow people statewide to create additional units out of garages or backhouses etc without the requirements imposed by local government. they also tried to get people to transform areas near mass transit to build large complexes, but this law failed. something called sb 50.
my buddy did a work around. he got elected councilman. and he bought up property. then rezoned them to multi residentials. then he created a construction company that built the housing.
Developing anything in So Cal is an f’ing nightmare.it is basically idiocracy. it is the perfect storm of liberal retardedness all conspiring to make everything miserable for everybody in every way imaginable.