.

[bush_cheney2004]

Got it. I guess it makes more sense to worry about bubble-headed starlets getting cheated by their husbands ? That mantra of hers makes more sense now, thanks.

Whose worried 'bout Doris ? At age 90+, she is living out her life in the Monterey Bay area thank-you-very-much. Attacking her with sexist slurs only demonstrates your naivete. Doris Day did not write the song.

[Guest Derek L]

Drama queens need not apply....homeowners actually walked away from homes after the U.S. real estate crash. Some revolt....

I think the true meaning of the word “revolt” has long lost it’s meaning in Western parlance………Are there still kids “Occupying” city parks in North America? I haven’t noticed……….

As I said to you before, our parents generation had “Occupied” Western Europe and Japan, our Generation kept it from being occupied from the Soviets……This Generation? Well I guess bad weather and municipal ordinances scared them off….Will the next revolution be on or after welfare day, and will it be along a bus route?

[Michael Hardner]

Attacking her with sexist slurs only demonstrates your naivete.

Bubble heads come in both genders.

Doris Day did not write the song.

One less talent for her, then. You can add song writing to acting, financial management and husband picking on the list of things she doesn't do well.

But, as she lipped, and you quoted, whatever will be will be - who is to worry ? American women with husbands who rip them off and skip town can make do by pulling off a couple of weeks at the Sands in Las Vegas then retire in Monteray Bay. Your philosophy is more clear to me, and easy to apply to any situation.

[kimmy]

And now we're talking about Doris Day? Slap yourself upside the head, Michael, for letting this guy troll you like this.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

To recap, Kimmy, I tried to follow BC's philosophy to it's natural end: if "everything is cool" and it all works out, then who's going to watch out for the revolution ? It turns out that that's not a concern either: what will be, will be. Although, oddly, it seemed to me that BC had some admiration for what the dizzy blonde non-songwriter had to "endure" (a curious word for somebody who speaks placidly about revolutions to use) and so... like the unemployed welfare mom who is more concerned with the unhappy jilted girlfriend on Maury Povich than her own lack of healthcare... Doris' tales seem to bother BC more than the US Gini coefficient does.

As I have always said, he's as consistent in his views as any poster on here, so I respect him for that part.

[bush_cheney2004]

...But, as she lipped, and you quoted, whatever will be will be - who is to worry ? American women with husbands who rip them off and skip town can make do by pulling off a couple of weeks at the Sands in Las Vegas then retire in Monteray Bay. Your philosophy is more clear to me, and easy to apply to any situation.

The American references are a bit askew, but as you told me years ago, after watching so much American media "they think they are Americans". Doris Day (and her family) actually lived through the Great Depression without whining like today's spoiled brats who think they have experienced the same thing.

[bush_cheney2004]

To recap, Kimmy, I tried to follow BC's philosophy to it's natural end: if "everything is cool" and it all works out, then who's going to watch out for the revolution ?

Even this is not original...Gil Scott-Heron uttered it a generation ago with :

[Moonlight Graham]

I can't help but think that Kevin O'Leary is a Stalking Horse for economic Marxists, trying like hell to make capitalists look like uncaring, un-self-reflective buffoons.

He always seems to say what he means to me. There's a lot of Kevin O'Leary's out there on Wall Street and Bay Street.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think the true meaning of the word “revolt” has long lost it’s meaning in Western parlance………Are there still kids “Occupying” city parks in North America? I haven’t noticed……….

Oh...they are soooooo hard done by. Curse the rich people who will not share the wealth so they can move from the world's top 10% to the world's top 5%. It just isn't fair !

[kimmy]

And young people are whining because seniors won't retire.

Sure, but that's completely beside the point. (although, it's no skin off my nose if Boomers have to keep working. I would expect that Boomers would be the ones most upset about that. Whatever happened to that "Freedom 55" idea we used to hear about so much? Sounds like it turned into "Pipe Dream 65.")

Boomers can always sell their houses at reduced prices.

And they are. And that's what they're griping about. "Millennials Ruining Housing Market :( " was one headline I recall. (The emoticons weren't there, although they were certainly implied.)

The "I got mine" generation really couldn't give a crap, up until we get to the part where they find out their assets aren't worth much in a market with no buyers. Much like the corporations that are doing everything possible to cut jobs, cut wages, cut benefits, then conduct focus groups to figure out why their stores are empty.

That reminds me of another of these "creating money without creating wealth" stories we've talked about recently. The Sears CEO who decided that they would use all the money they used to set aside for capital improvements for share buy-backs instead, to drive the stock price up. Yep, the shares went up, even though sales have been going down steadily. Been in a Sears store lately? Were you put off by the rotting carpets, decomposing ceiling-tiles and overall dilapidation? I certainly was. If my local Sears was a residence, it would be condemned. But hey, the share price went up, so it was a good decision, right? Well, it was a great decision for the CEO, because his compensation package included one hell of a lot of shares. Maybe it was a good decision for the shareholders too, for a while at least. But now they have falling sales, less money to prop up the share price with, no money to fixed their dilapidated stores, no money to build new stores, so has this really been a successful business strategy for "creating wealth"? Sell your Sears shares quick, Dick.

-k

[Guest Derek L]

Oh...they are soooooo hard done by. Curse the rich people who will not share the wealth so they can move from the world's top 10% to the world's top 5%. It just isn't fair !

I think the coming revolution is best summed up like this:

In other words, the young revolutionaries eventually grow-up, get a job, married, crap-out a couple of kids and wonder what the younger Generation is complaining about….

[bush_cheney2004]

And they are. And that's what they're griping about. "Millennials Ruining Housing Market :( " was one headline I recall. (The emoticons weren't there, although they were certainly implied.)

Already stated before...thanks for catching up. Real estate markets don't care how old buyers or sellers are. Homes are not piggy banks.

The "I got mine" generation really couldn't give a crap, up until we get to the part where they find out their assets aren't worth much in a market with no buyers. Much like the corporations that are doing everything possible to cut jobs, cut wages, cut benefits, then conduct focus groups to figure out why their stores are empty.

But that's OK, because rampant consumerism is destroying the planet. Must save the planet, right ?

...But now they have falling sales, less money to prop up the share price with, no money to fixed their dilapidated stores, no money to build new stores, so has this really been a successful business strategy for "creating wealth"? Sell your Sears shares quick, Dick.

Sears has been dead for years, and that includes the wannabe version in Canada. I buy and sell shares all the time....no big deal. I wish there was a way to short the entire province of Ontario !

Edited January 27, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

In other words, the young revolutionaries eventually grow-up, get a job, married, crap-out a couple of kids and wonder what the younger Generation is complaining about….

Yep, and they don't even have to deal with the old Lucas electrical systems !

[kimmy]

In other words, the young revolutionaries eventually grow-up, get a job, married, crap-out a couple of kids and wonder what the younger Generation is complaining about….

The getting married and having kids part is all happening later in life because young people today are too broke and indebted to raise families.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

The getting married and having kids part is all happening later in life because young people today are too broke and indebted to raise families.

Poor dears...who forced them to take on so much debt ?

[Guest Derek L]

Yep, and they don't even have to deal with the old Lucas electrical systems !

Indeed, back in the late 1940s, Lucas lobbied the Socialist Labour Party to repeal Ohm’s law……..Of course their efforts were for naught, fore they met too much resistance

[Guest Derek L]

The getting married and having kids part is all happening later in life because young people today are too broke and indebted to raise families.

-k

Both my wife and I were piss broke when we got married and had kids……

[bush_cheney2004]

Both my wife and I were piss broke when we got married and had kids……

But...but...but...how did you survive without high speed data services and smart phones and $6 coffee and big ass televisions and tanning beds and premium cable channels and DVD box sets and MyFace and health clubs and ....

[Guest Derek L]

But...but...but...how did you survive without high speed data services and smart phones and $6 coffee and big ass televisions and tanning beds and premium cable channels and DVD box sets and MyFace and health clubs and ....

Great difficulty, like most other “young couples”…..I think the one disparity today, and I do try and steer clear of social arguments, is the lack of or latter in life marriages of today’s “youth”…..Leaving morality out of it, from an economic perspective, two adults living together sharing expenses does reap economic benefits.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Derek L

[kimmy]

Already stated before...thanks for catching up. Real estate markets don't care how old buyers or sellers are. Homes are not piggy banks.

Many of your compatriots apparently didn't get the memo. The falling real-estate market worked out quite nicely for me. Perhaps not so great for you guys.

But that's OK, because rampant consumerism is destroying the planet. Must save the planet, right ?

I don't see the point of your response. I don't think you or any other members of Elephant Team really believe that economic activity means destroying the planet, so I'm not sure why you'd be suggesting that

Mitt and Paul campaigned on "A Rising Tide Raises All Boats!" but if Cruz or Christie or whoever comes next wants to campaign on "Falling tides will save the trees" then I applaud their audacity. It will take immense cahones to convince voters that outsourcing jobs and cutting wages are good for America.

Sears has been dead for years, and that includes the wannabe version in Canada. I buy and sell shares all the time....no big deal. I wish there was a way to short the entire province of Ontario !

I don't much care if that Sears CEO runs his business into the ground, aside from feeling bad for the people that work there. But if folks like Paul Ryan are going to talk about how lower Capital Gains taxes Create Jobs~~! then Sears CEO Guy making huge amount of money by running his company into the ground is a pertinent counter-example that they should be confronted with.

-k

[kimmy]

Poor dears...who forced them to take on so much debt ?

For as long as I can recall the message us younger people have been fed is that your employment prospects depend on higher education.

What does it say that right now the best advice you could give a young person is "DON'T GO TO COLLEGE!!!" ?

It's funny, I kind of feel like I dodged a bullet on that one. One of my friends that went to university is making pretty good coin and paid her student loans off early. The rest of my friends that attended university are making less than I am, or have struggled with long-term unemployment.

Both my wife and I were piss broke when we got married and had kids……

Yeah, must have been nice back in the good old days.

-k

[Moonlight Graham]

Fascinating article about social mobility in the US:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/01/new_harvard_study_where_is_the_land_of_opportunity_finds_broken_families.html

I predict these findings will be ignored by the left because they are inconvenient.

Well now let's look at and quote the actual study: http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/mobility_geo.pdf

The five factors that exhibit the strongest and most robust correlations with integenerational mobility are (1) segregation, (2) income inequality, (3) school quality, (4) social capital, and (5) family structure.

What your article was ranking was "predictors of mobility" (and I don't even know if their ranking is correct since the study only mentions family structure as being #1 and the graphs are confusing), so there's a difference between "correlation" and "predictors" for US inter-generational mobility.

The correlation between the Gini coecient and upward mobility is -0.578, implying that there is a "Great Gatsby" relationship within the U.S. similar to that documented across countries in prior work.

"The Great Gatsby curve" mentioned above shows the strong correlation between high income inequality and low social mobility within/between countries. Once again the Scandinavian countries with their evil "socialist" taxes & excellent health care/education etc. come out on top: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-05/obama-talks-inequality-and-mobility-going-full-gatsby

In 2004, again inspired by a theoretical paper by Solon, Corak produced the first version of a graph that compared developed economies according to income inequality and social mobility. The graph shows that countries with the highest income inequality, such as the U.K. and the U.S., are also the most likely to pass economic status from one generation to another.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[bush_cheney2004]

Great difficulty, like most other “young couples”…..I think the one disparity today, and I do try and steer clear of social arguments, is the lack of or latter in life marriages of today’s “youth”…..Leaving morality out of it, from an economic perspective, two adults living together sharing expenses does reap economic benefits.

Yes, their lack of economic common sense has them clueless about this reality. Roommate ? No way !

Fortunately, with age comes some wisdom about debt and cashflow except for the hard core crybabies.

[Moonlight Graham]

Of all the factors most predictive of economic mobility in America, one factor clearly stands out in their study: family structure. By their reckoning, when it comes to mobility, “the strongest and most robust predictor is the fraction of children with single parents.” They find that children raised in communities with high percentages of single mothers are significantly less likely to experience absolute and relative mobility.

Makes sense that single-mothers produce less mobility, since they have to care for their kids instead of going to school or rising in a career. Here's some other things the study writes about that:

The fraction of single-parents and the racial segregation index are strong predictors of differences in relative mobility across areas, but the other factors are not statistically signicant.

To understand why this is the case, in Column 6 we replicate Column 5 but exclude the fraction of children with single parents. In this specification, all four of the remaining factors - including the Gini coefficient - are strong predictors of the variation in relative mobility across CZs. Column 7 replicates the specification in Column 6 using absolute upward mobility as the dependent variable. Once again, all four factors are strong predictors of upward mobility when the fraction of single parents is excluded. These results suggest that the fraction of single parents may capture some of the variation in the other factors, most notably the level of income inequality. Indeed, CZs with greater inequality have significantly higher rates of single parenthood. Hence, the results in Table IX are consistent with the view that inequality affects children's outcomes partly by degrading family structure and social ties in the community.

[cybercoma]

The "I got mine" generation really couldn't give a crap, up until we get to the part where they find out their assets aren't worth much in a market with no buyers. Much like the corporations that are doing everything possible to cut jobs, cut wages, cut benefits, then conduct focus groups to figure out why their stores are empty.

-k

The best part is that Henry Ford figured out how to solve that problem 100 years ago. I guess if the humanities and social sciences were valued as much as STEM, they would listen to historians, sociologists, and economists about that one and have their answers.