Journal tomhudson's Journal: Easily 4 more years ... 27
No, I'm not talking about Obama. I'm talking about 4 more years before the economy hits bottom
The changing composition of the workforce, which began with the massive layoffs circa 2008 and which continues, has the following primary drivers:
- Discouraged workers of all ages are dropping out;
- Many older workers are going to hit retirement age and be out of the workforce without having retired from their job, since they won't have had a job for much of the period between the beginning of the Second Depression and when they finally officially "retire";
- "Involuntary self-employment" and "perma-part-time" become the reality for a large chunk of the population who are otherwise considered "too old";
- The definition of "too old" continues to trend downward, now being someone in their mid to late 40s for many jobs;
- Off-shoring will continue as developing countries down-price their labour forces due to price pressure;
- The divide between haves and have-nots will continue to grow, as will the assault on the middle class;
- Most education will be seen as not worth the debt - especially when interest rates start to rise.
As for the election? It really doesn't make a difference to this discussion. Some problems can only be worked out by letting events run their course.
Hari Seldon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're optimistic (Score:2)
When socialism collapsed in the USSR it took nearly 20 years for GDP to recover to the pre-crash levels.
This time socialism is headed for a simultaneous collapse in the entire developed world.
No. (Score:2)
This time socialism is headed for a simultaneous collapse in the entire developed world.
You are dead wrong. Capitalism is collapsing this time. The US kept removing controls and now they are facing the consequences. Many of the current problems could be eradicated by some sensible state programs but instead are further impaired by corporate stupidity.
For one really blaringly obvious example, look at the underemployed. The US has millions of people who want full time work but can't get it because the jobs are no longer there. However many of them could get by on part-time wage but can
Re: (Score:2)
I've been seeing these kinds of posts more often on many different sites.
Is somebody [computerworld.com] running automated bots that trigger on specific keywords and then respond with prepared talking points?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So really, if you want to blow someone off because you disagree with them, you should either try harder or just not reply. Being as ass about your ignorance and your disregard for others' opinions doesn't get you anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think they were just joking
That may be. I have missed the sarcasm in posts here in the past. It may be that I had perceived seriousness when none was intended.
Why don't people who disagree with the "top-down feed the bulls at the top and maybe you'll be able to stay warm when they poop on you" do the same thing?
I'm not sure I follow. What is it that you propose people to do?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
trigger on specific keywords and then respond with prepared talking points?
Says the guy declaring that communism is collapsing ;)
d_r's been around to toe the liberal line for a while. Despite your low UID, You Must Be New Here.
Re: (Score:2)
In a way that's true.
I hardly ever read the comment sections on Slashdot stories any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny you should mention that.
After watching how well our political and economic system punishes good behavior and rewards criminality I've considered some changes to my future plans. Why be responsible when I could rack up as much student loan debt as humanly possible with the intention o
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen "tow" the line so often that for a moment I thought you had gotten it wrong. : - )
Re: (Score:1)
Not only the US. I'll tell you a little event I lived through myself in the times the world was still "whole", which is a few years ago (at least three, if not four). Anyway, some background first: I live in one of the most expensive European countries which is also famous (notorious?) for its bank
Re: (Score:2)
They've loosed the rules somewhat in that they now give 30 year mortgages instead of 25 years, but they still have to be re-negotiated every few years, so this tends to make people leery. For example, you might take a 25-year mortgage with a 5-year term. At the end of the 5 years, you have to take out a new mortgage
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I said 30% as I dad said "A third of your income". I never asked the actual percentage, he meant. I just assumed 30%. If it all had to be my own money, then a house would still be out of the question. The only question I have regarding that rule would be: "How the heck do I prove that?!?". If my dad does a wire transfer of BIGNUM€ to my account, is it not mine?
We're on 20 years... First of all, I'll be 55 when it's done paying, which is already quite old. Besides, I'd like to have the 25 ye
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps what you should have said is that the US kept imposing controls.
For example, rather than create a massively government funded insurance program, the US government should have removed laws that exempt insurance companies from anti-trust rules.
The US should never have repealed Glass-Steigel, instead allowing banks, insurance companies, and other financial businesses to remain smaller, and less able to disrupt the market place.
The Federal Government never should have forced banks to begin issuing sub-p
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps what you should have said is that the US kept imposing controls.
No, I know what I said. What I said reflects reality.
For example, rather than create a massively government funded insurance program
What massively government funded insurance program are you referring to? The Health Insurance Company Bailout Act forces Americans to buy insurance from the same morally bankrupt companies that have been ass-raping us for decades. It was supposed to make the situation better for the consumer, but instead it made the insurance companies even more powerful than they already were.
The Federal Government never should have forced banks to begin issuing sub-prime loans in an effort to boost the poorer sections of American society.
That may have been a bad idea, if it had actually happened. The Federal
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea for an alternate reality past history sci-fi story. Scenario: Modern-day scientists discover that in the last 100,000 years of their existence, some dinosaur species, under evolutionary pressure brought on by a temporary cooling or warming of the sun (take your pick) evolved human levels of intelligence, and within a few generations, transformed the vast forests of Pangea into ranches where they raised their herds of dino-meat, and vast plantation
Re: (Score:2)
Earl Sinclair, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
That may have been a bad idea, if it had actually happened. The Federal Government never forced a bank to issue a sub-prime loan. It never said that a bank had to loan money at a specific rate to a specific person or group of people. The government offered incentives towards doing so, but banks were free to make their own choices on the matter. There are banks that are doing quite well because they chose to stay out of giving out loans to people who did not have reasonable ways to pay them back.
Your statement is [wikipedia.org] very [wikipedia.org] incorrect. [wikipedia.org] Both the Republicans [wikipedia.org] and Democrats are guilty in this matter. Laws were created to make the financial crisis mess inevitable. (Yes, with the Fed's free money for a decade, a disaster would happen no matter what, but this particular disaster can be laid at the feet of the Federal Government.) GLBA only accelerated a cluster fuck that was created in 1972 under Carter, and expanded in 1992 by Bush I and in 1995 and 1999 by Clinton. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That may have been a bad idea, if it had actually happened. The Federal Government never forced a bank to issue a sub-prime loan. It never said that a bank had to loan money at a specific rate to a specific person or group of people. The government offered incentives towards doing so, but banks were free to make their own choices on the matter. There are banks that are doing quite well because they chose to stay out of giving out loans to people who did not have reasonable ways to pay them back.
Your statement is very incorrect
Not if you actually read the very first link you provided. You only have to read to Enforcement [wikipedia.org]:
The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution
Why you couldn't read past the contents of the very first page you linked, I do not know. I would guess that means you probably didn't read much of what you grabbed in hopes of supporting your incorrect claims.
Laws were created to make the financial crisis mess inevitable.
No. Greed made the crisis inevitable. The banks found ways to make money from insanely risky behavior. The government did not force the banks to issue loans to people
Re: (Score:2)
"The Federal Government never should have forced banks to begin issuing sub-prime loans in an effort to boost the poorer sections of American society."
Outfits like Countrywide and Golden West weren't banks, and nobody forced them, but they were right there in the thick of it, long before Fannie and Freddie started trying to play catch up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Real incomes started declining but they kept piling on the debt increases until 2008 [market-ticker.org] despite that. When this bubble finally pops for real it's going to be a sight to behold.