The American Dream Is Now Officially Unaffordable

[fskimospy]

You are making the assumption that every individual would hire their own security, vs banding together to pool resources to hire security. I dont presume to know how the society would implement security beyond the current structure. Thats not really the point though, because its such a complex issue that is not truly what we are talking about here.

If you don't presume to know how society would implement security outside of this structure then you certainly can't say that a socialized army is a less efficient way of doing it.

Its why I summed up your argument as socialism being about organizing resources which includes labor and directing to efficient uses. Its far less productive to try and argue a topic through a "what if" because the parameters are almost endless.

The issue is, can government create more jobs than the taxes is levies ends or holds back?

And the answer there, at least to me, is clearly "it depends on the situation and the sector".

 

[ch33zw1z]

I wouldn't say the American Dream is "unaffordable", it's just harder to join the club.

 

[realibrad]

If you don't presume to know how society would implement security outside of this structure then you certainly can't say that a socialized army is a less efficient way of doing it.

Are you saying that I was arguing that a socialized army was bad?

And the answer there, at least to me, is clearly "it depends on the situation and the sector".

The problem happens when the idea of socialism being more efficient is then applied to all sectors. So when people start depending on job creation from the government in any other situation other than a depression era time, its going to to end poorly.

The whole argument stems from

We need jobs Mr. President! Not jokes.

and then someone responding saying to not depend on the government because net job creation is not done through the government.

You are advocating a balance of social institutions in a predominantly capitalist economy which I agree with. The issue comes from Korea74 saying we need to get the government to create jobs, and the counter by werepossum saying we need to fix the reason we lost the jobs first, because a greater return will be had.

 

[TheSlamma]

Don't forget mass murder. But, ivwshane feels they did just fine. That says a lot.

Isn't it weird how communists never offer to go and become a citizen of places like N. Korea, China or insert country where ants have more rights/say in their colony then a human of this country does?

 

[Exterous]

China existed just fine for 5000 years, I'd say they did a pretty good job.

'China' hasn't existed for 5000 years. Governments and empires in the landmass area typically referred to as China have existed for 5000 years. You might as well say North America has existed for 5000 years because both Europeans and Indians lived here is various country\nation like groupings

There was that ~300 year span known as the 'Warring period' betwee different nations, the civil war of Han overthrowing Qin, the wars expanding the Han dynasty (against other 'Chinese' states), the Xin dynasty being ended by a mob rebellion, the split into the Three Kingdoms (So which one of these do you consider China?), another Civil war, more rebellions, the change to Southern and Northern dynasties (again which one is 'China'?), the war to unify them into the Su dynasty, more wars of expansion against other 'Chinese' nations\dynasties, the split into the 5 dynasties\10 kingdoms (Which one is China?)

Shit - and thats all before the 1300s! I am not going to get into the entire history other than to point out:
25,000,000 deaths from the Qing vs Ming war
20,000,000 deaths from the Taiping Rebellion
13,000,000 deaths from the An Lushan Rebellion
7,500,000 deaths from the Chinese Civil War

You may also want to look at the Opium wars

TL;DR: You are pretty fucking stupid to think that:
1. China has existed for 5000 years. Governments and Empires have existed IN China for 5,000 years but there is not even close to a traceable lineage to link them
2. They did so 'Just fine' unless you think having 4 of the top 8 bloodiest wars is somehow doing ok

 

[ivwshane]

'China' hasn't existed for 5000 years. Governments and empires in the landmass area typically referred to as China have existed for 5000 years. You might as well say North America has existed for 5000 years because both Europeans and Indians lived here is various country\nation like groupings

There was that ~300 year span known as the 'Warring period' betwee different nations, the civil war of Han overthrowing Qin, the wars expanding the Han dynasty (against other 'Chinese' states), the Xin dynasty being ended by a mob rebellion, the split into the Three Kingdoms (So which one of these do you consider China?), another Civil war, more rebellions, the change to Southern and Northern dynasties (again which one is 'China'?), the war to unify them into the Su dynasty, more wars of expansion against other 'Chinese' nations\dynasties, the split into the 5 dynasties\10 kingdoms (Which one is China?)

Shit - and thats all before the 1300s! I am not going to get into the entire history other than to point out:
25,000,000 deaths from the Qing vs Ming war
20,000,000 deaths from the Taiping Rebellion
13,000,000 deaths from the An Lushan Rebellion
7,500,000 deaths from the Chinese Civil War

You may also want to look at the Opium wars

TL;DR: You are pretty fucking stupid to think that:
1. China has existed for 5000 years. Governments and Empires have existed IN China for 5,000 years but there is not even close to a traceable lineage to link them
2. They did so 'Just fine' unless you think having 4 of the top 8 bloodiest wars is somehow doing ok

Lol! You could say the same about pretty much every other country. The case for capitalism certainly isn't helped by any of what you said, which was the point.

Thanks for the well researched post though

 

[realibrad]

Lol! You could say the same about pretty much every other country. The case for capitalism certainly isn't helped by any of what you said, which was the point.

Thanks for the well researched post though

Capitalism was not apart of the Chinese history. The accusation that China has done well for the past 5000 years without capitalism is wrong.

 

[ivwshane]

Capitalism was not apart of the Chinese history. The accusation that China has done well for the past 5000 years without capitalism is wrong.

So China had always been a capitalist nation? Your statement is a contradiction.

I'm not sure what your definition of successful is but typically historians don't compare modern society to older ones when talking about success. It's the same reason you don't say everyone in America is rich because they all own cars, where once upon a time, cars were only for the rich.

 

[Exterous]

You could say the same about pretty much every other country.

The point was that China as a country hasn't existed for 5000 years and even if you did contort that history into come sort of singular country that they certainly haven't 'done just fine'

 

[Zaap]

LOL@ the futility of discussing history with a dumbass like ivwshame. A dead tree stump would know more.

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, commonly known as the Cultural Revolution, was a social-political movement that took place in the People's Republic of China from 1966 until 1976. Set into motion by Mao Zedong, then Chairman of the Communist Party of China, its stated goal was to enforce communism in the country by removing capitalist, traditional and cultural elements from Chinese society, and to impose Maoist orthodoxy within the Party. The Revolution marked the return of Mao Zedong to a position of power after the Great Leap Forward. The movement paralyzed China politically and significantly affected the country economically and socially.

You could basically sum it up as: "what happens when a country disgards all of its intelligent people and takes the dumb ideas spouted by morons like ivwshame and actually runs with them."

 

[alcoholbob]

'China' hasn't existed for 5000 years. Governments and empires in the landmass area typically referred to as China have existed for 5000 years. You might as well say North America has existed for 5000 years because both Europeans and Indians lived here is various country\nation like groupings

There was that ~300 year span known as the 'Warring period' betwee different nations, the civil war of Han overthrowing Qin, the wars expanding the Han dynasty (against other 'Chinese' states), the Xin dynasty being ended by a mob rebellion, the split into the Three Kingdoms (So which one of these do you consider China?), another Civil war, more rebellions, the change to Southern and Northern dynasties (again which one is 'China'?), the war to unify them into the Su dynasty, more wars of expansion against other 'Chinese' nations\dynasties, the split into the 5 dynasties\10 kingdoms (Which one is China?)

Shit - and thats all before the 1300s! I am not going to get into the entire history other than to point out:
25,000,000 deaths from the Qing vs Ming war
20,000,000 deaths from the Taiping Rebellion
13,000,000 deaths from the An Lushan Rebellion
7,500,000 deaths from the Chinese Civil War

You may also want to look at the Opium wars

TL;DR: You are pretty fucking stupid to think that:
1. China has existed for 5000 years. Governments and Empires have existed IN China for 5,000 years but there is not even close to a traceable lineage to link them
2. They did so 'Just fine' unless you think having 4 of the top 8 bloodiest wars is somehow doing ok

5000 years is an exaggeration but modern Metropolitan China occupied by the Han Chinese is basically Dynastic China that stretches back ~2500 years.

 

[ivwshane]

LOL@ the futility of discussing history with a dumbass like ivwshame. A dead tree stump would know more.




You could basically sum it up as: "what happens when a country disgards all of its intelligent people and takes the dumb ideas spouted by morons like ivwshame and actually runs with them."

And dumbass morons like yourself fail at reading comprehension. I pointed out a country that was considered successful by any historical standards and your retort is that that is invalidated by relatively recent history in said country.

 

[realibrad]

And dumbass morons like yourself fail at reading comprehension. I pointed out a country that was considered successful by any historical standards and your retort is that that is invalidated by relatively recent history in said country.

Then define the standard which you are using. It seems like the only standard is that a region has been around for thousands of years. So other than existing, what has it done to be successful?

 

[Wreckem]

$130K is around the 80% mark. Still pretty high. At least as of 2012 numbers.

$130K in California will get you a house in Sacramento or something. $130K though in Texas will get you a lot.

So it all depends on where you live.

Those making around the median which is around $60K per household are in for a world of hurt. Realistically speaking most people cannot afford a home anymore. I haven't followed the numbers very closely lately but I remember when I graduated from University they said that only 8% of Californians could afford a home. Now that we've had the bubble burst I believe that number is up to about 30%.

So yeah, if you want the American dream you better make some good money. As for the rest of the population? Well they're not destined for much.

There's no shame in renting except that rents around here at least are astronomically high.

$130k is around the top 10% of household income. Median household income is no where near $60k. Median household income is in the low $50s. Mean is in the Mid $80s. FYI, median income for individuals is ~$30k.

The $130k in the OPs article is way off base/way out of touch. It might be true for higher priced urban areas, but for the rest of the US its far from the truth.

 

[Wreckem]

Unless you can afford to buy a home outright then the monthly payment is what matters. At $60K your monthly payment would be half of what a $300,000 house is today. Have salaries doubled?

The big question is can Americans afford a mortgage payment and pay no more than 30% of their income on a respectable home? If you borrow $350K then your payment is around $1720 a month. Add in maintenance and taxes. Lets just call it $2000 a month to make this simple. How many households are pulling in $6666 after taxes? On the coasts it's much higher but even these numbers are interesting.

Total table napkin math not taking into account deductions and whatnot but $80K after taxes is a decent income. I imagine that's close enough to the $130K mark.

Instead what's happening is that people are paying way more than 30% of their income on housing and are sacrificing on other things like vacation. At least with my friends vacation is camping unless they are making more than say $150,000 a year as a household. Camping is about $75 a day for the whole family. Worse yet they're sacrificing on retirement. I shudder to think what this county will look like in 30 years when all these broke people are going to retire on social security.

If I could have a $350k mortgage for a monthly payment of $2000, I'd do it. But in Texas $350k mortgage is going to cost you closer to $2600/month. In the DFW metro area you are looking at about $800/month in property taxes on a $350k house.

 

[Naeeldar]

If I could have a $350k mortgage for a monthly payment of $2000, I'd do it. But in Texas $350k mortgage is going to cost you closer to $2600/month. In the DFW metro area you are looking at about $800/month in property taxes on a $350k house.

Taxes have gotten up to $10,000 a year in Dallas/PLano area? That seems like a fairly large jump from where things used to be at.

 

[Engineer]

Taxes have gotten up to $10,000 a year in Dallas/PLano area? That seems like a fairly large jump from where things used to be at.

2.18% in Dallas from what I can tell. $7,630 per year in taxes on $350,000 house.

 

[Naeeldar]

2.18% in Dallas from what I can tell. $7,630 per year in taxes on $350,000 house.

Interesting. I know Dallas has had a ton of growth but did not realize it had gotten that high - comprable to taxes here actually. On the other hand that $350k house would be $500-$550k here so I'd still trade you but that's a pretty large boost from where it was 10-15 years ago.

 

[fskimospy]

Taxes have gotten up to $10,000 a year in Dallas/PLano area? That seems like a fairly large jump from where things used to be at.

I just checked and DFW property tax rates are 2.71%. I'm assuming this is on the full value of the house, but I don't know if Texas property taxes have varying exemptions, etc.

http://www.ntc-dfw.org/northtexas/costsproptax.html

Assuming 2.71 is correct, then $2,600 might be a little low, actually.

$350k mortgage assumes a $400k home value (20% down).

At current rates, which are somewhere between 4 and 4.5% for a 30 year fixed (I chose 4.25%) you get about $2,625 a month for a $350k mortgage and a home value of $400k with property taxes of 2.71%.

(fixed my math)

 

[Rakehellion]

He's asked to raise the minimum wage.

He has passed the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) which does the opposite, and socializes medicine.

Wouldn't those things help people afford the American Dream?

 

[werepossum]

Wouldn't those things help people afford the American Dream?

Not really. Raising the minimum wage makes costs go up for those trying to live the American Dream while largely benefiting those just trying to survive. The ACA also raises costs, but I'd rule that about a wash as those who are helped are typically helped a lot. One who was self-employed or employed without health insurance and who also had pre-existing conditions could pay a ton for health insurance if one could get it at all, so for most people the ACA makes the American Dream a little bit tougher while for the lucky few it makes the American Dream a lot easier.

 

[OverVolt]

Noooo ur retarded.... nooo ur retarded... Sigh!

ACA is definitely increasing healthcare costs for me personally and most who I know. Inb4 10,000 links to cnn that prove otherwise. I take a little bit of comfort knowing if I ever had anything major wrong with me health-wise that I can't be dropped but other than that part of the law the other 7,999 pages seem to be screwing up the healthcare system.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yea OV, my healthcare has doubled in the last 4 years. The ACA definitely hasn't saved me any money...yet. I say yet, because eventually my employer will just drop the benefit and then I'll be on ACA, and with my income I'll qualify for some "help" paying for my insurance, so then I can say they've "helped" me.