wbyeats@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>A weak dollar might be *good*. It means that our ex****ts are cheaper
>>and we can start to address the trade imbalance. It means Americans
>>will find it more worthwhile to buy American, since foreign goods will
>>be much more expensive. Buying American means more jobs, of course.
>
>And exactly what are we going to buy that's made in America? Cars -
>ummmm no.
Yes.
>Appliances, furniture, clothing?
Yes
>Food - okay. Now tell us all what else.
If you don't have something to buy, you could always save it up for
that house (see below)
>The weak dollar cutting im****ts to any meaningful measure is a joke.
Normally when the prices go up, people stop buying at those prices.
>>>If people have no job, can they get a house?
>>
>>They can live with their parents, get a roommate, etc. as was done in
>>the goode olde days. People shouldn't be buying a house as soon as
>>they get a job. That is what got us into this mess. Save up for a
>>few years - THEN buy a house.
>
>No - what got us into this mess was greedy lenders.
That too, but lenders cannot loan unless someone is stupid enough to
borrow from them. And it is their money so arguably they are entitled
to be greedy about it. (That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be
regulated though).
>Tell us all how folks in the middle class are saving for a house these
days.
They aren't. That is the problem. They spend it, often on things
that are really luxuries.
>Disposable income for 90% of the US has gone down for the past seven
>years.
I don't disagree. But ...
If kids stayed at home until they could afford to move out, did not
buy IPODs and cellphones and PlayStations and whatever, they'd have a
lot more money when they did move out. Disposable income has gone
down, but this is partly because households are being set up before
people really have the wherewithal to maintain a household.
My kids both moved out, bought cars and within a few months each was
back to borrow money to pay for repairs because they bought a car with
no money left in savings for emergencies. Both of them constantly
spend every penny they have on non-essentials, so that they are always
on the borderline for essentials. My son is at a college away from
home, but since he wanted a dog, and to live with his girlfriend, he
is paying 3-4 times as much as what he would have paid to live in a
dorm. My daughter does something socially every night. Usually the
guy is paying, but if they stayed at home, that money could go in the
bank. And she has bought a wardrobe suitable to her non-boring
lifestyle, at high total cost even though she buys on sale.
If people changed their lifestyles, then at least some of that 90%
would still have disposable income.
>he gap between those who can afford homes and those who can't
>is increasing. The affordability index for housing shows that only
>about 30% of the US can afford homes.
Yet somewhat over 50% of householders own their own homes. Something
of a disconnect there.
>But sure thing, stay with Mom and Dad and save your ever dwindling
salary.
I've been studying genealogy and in the olde days women would stay
with their parents until they could afford to get married (which was
often in their 30s). Men would sometimes leave home earlier, but
still well into adulthood. Of course they didn't have cars and cell
phones and computers to eat up their money.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lojban language www.lojban.org
|
