|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
In my birth town with a similar population to Portland, apparently there are about 50 deaths in traffic per year. This statistics seems to also use a lot of the surrounding area, though. A bit more investigation lead me to conclude that this statistic is not only of the city, but of the region, which has about 1.1 million people in it. So Portland may seems to be a bit higher than this, but not to a totally absurd degree.
|
United States41991 Posts
There is a lack of financial literacy but it’s also compounded by societal problems. If you’ve got one person telling you that you shouldn’t spend more than you earn and society, the media, role models, etc. all telling you that you need to go into debt to purchase what they’re selling it’s a one sided battle. It’s like a small town dentist vs Coke and Nestle arguing over how much sugar people should consume.
Americans are trained from childhood to consume. You can’t support an inspirational athlete without them telling you to go into debt for shoes. You can’t go on social media without being hit with conspicuous consumption designed to fill you with envy and inadequacy. Schoolkids are getting bullied due to shit like Fortnite skins which exist only as a form of gatekeeping through displays of excess, they have value because they allow segregation through waste.
Americans make terrible financial choices and I have no doubt that I could turn around the life of pretty much any individual I switched places with. But I’m an outlier and an outsider, this is a macro problem, not a micro one.
|
It's a lot (but not something that unusual). Most of deadly car accidents happen outside of cities. By comparison in 2016 there were 54 casulties of traffic accidents in Warsaw - and Warsaw is 3-5 times bigger than Portland (depending what numbers You trust) + Poland is notoriously bad when it comes to traffic safty. The city infrstructure influence this static greatly, for example my city while being only slightly bigger than Portland had twice the amount of accidents of Warsaw in 2012 (so was 6 times as dangerous when it comes to traffic).
|
On August 01 2019 23:43 KwarK wrote:
There is a lack of financial literacy but it’s also compounded by societal problems. If you’ve got one person telling you that you shouldn’t spend more than you earn and society, the media, role models, etc. all telling you that you need to go into debt to purchase what they’re selling it’s a one sided battle. It’s like a small town dentist vs Coke and Nestle arguing over how much sugar people should consume.
Americans are trained from childhood to consume. You can’t support an inspirational athlete without them telling you to go into debt for shoes. You can’t go on social media without being hit with conspicuous consumption designed to fill you with envy and inadequacy. Schoolkids are getting bullied due to shit like Fortnite skins which exist only as a form of gatekeeping through displays of excess, they have value because they allow segregation through waste.
Americans make terrible financial choices and I have no doubt that I could turn around the life of pretty much any individual I switched places with. But I’m an outlier and an outsider, this is a macro problem, not a micro one.
One of the strangest things to me is the US credit rating system. Promoting owning credit cards with high limits that also often are promoting spending with how they are set up.
Any credit rating should be checking current debt level without securities vs income. That is it, adding on extra factors to promote certain behaviours seem to be fucking a lot with people in the US from my perspective.
|
Regarding the debates last night, I think Andrew Yang really resonated with his closing statement. We've mentioned many times that so much of this stuff is just political theater, and for whatever reason no politician ever really addresses it.
+ Show Spoiler [1 minute video] +
And showing people how much money the freedom dividend would put into their community is a message he really needs to drive home.
|
On August 02 2019 00:12 Dromar wrote:Regarding the debates last night, I think Andrew Yang really resonated with his closing statement. We've mentioned many times that so much of this stuff is just political theater, and for whatever reason no politician ever really addresses it. + Show Spoiler [1 minute video] +And showing people how much money the freedom dividend would put into their community is a message he really needs to drive home.
His opening statement was on point too. I think a lot of the opening statements were pretty solid, and the audience was a little rowdy and hecklish.
|
That's not actually what the report from the Fed says. It asks the respondents how they would cover the emergency expense. It doesn't ask if they could pay the emergency expense out of their savings if they wanted to. Many people may choose to use their credit card instead of using their savings. There's another question which asks if the emergency fund would impact the ability to pay other bills that month and of those 85% answered no. The statement that 40% of americans can't cover a 400$ expense is a myth.
|
On August 01 2019 14:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2019 12:47 Doodsmack wrote:On August 01 2019 11:27 IgnE wrote:
It is a bit ironic that a guy who appears to have been, on the whole, less racist than his peers of whatever political party, is now being targeted for heinous remarks in a private conversation in 1971, largely because of his political significance in a deepening political schism. He put a goodly portion of the black population in prison so this question of whether he was less racist is not exactly clear. I know I said I wasnt going to say any more but I will point out that, just like with Clinton in the 90s or Biden (who was in the Senate) many of these bills were supported by Democrats and black local leaders and I think. majority, or near majority of the CBC. Bill Clinton wasnt racist then for it, nor was Joe Biden, nor was RR. Nor was Ed Kennedy, the "liberal lion" or the "lion of the Senate." Another person loved by their party despite his, uh, personal imperfections. these bills were passed by large majorities or with voice consent.
Interestingly it was the two people on that phone call who more or less conceived (nixon) and then expanded (reagan) the war on drugs so it may be that they deserve the most credit. Carter was a hiatus in the war on drugs. Needless to say if you conceive of black people as monkies, the policies you yourself create (as president, which is who gets credit) may correlate with your beliefs.
|
This would appear to be a pretty substantive bit of reporting from John solomon (whose column is for some reason labeled "opinion"). It would appear that criminal liability is on the table for those who are the subject of the Justice Department's reviews of the Russia investigation.
|
On August 02 2019 01:29 RvB wrote:That's not actually what the report from the Fed says. It asks the respondents how they would cover the emergency expense. It doesn't ask if they could pay the emergency expense out of their savings if they wanted to. Many people may choose to use their credit card instead of using their savings. There's another question which asks if the emergency fund would impact the ability to pay other bills that month and of those 85% answered no. The statement that 40% of americans can't cover a 400$ expense is a myth.
We must be reading different reports because the one in the 4th link says
If faced with an unexpected expense of $400, 61 percent of adults say they would cover it with cash, savings, or a credit card paid off at the next statement
|
On August 02 2019 01:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2019 00:12 Dromar wrote:Regarding the debates last night, I think Andrew Yang really resonated with his closing statement. We've mentioned many times that so much of this stuff is just political theater, and for whatever reason no politician ever really addresses it. + Show Spoiler [1 minute video] +And showing people how much money the freedom dividend would put into their community is a message he really needs to drive home. His opening statement was on point too. I think a lot of the opening statements were pretty solid, and the audience was a little rowdy and hecklish.
He had some big hits and misses I thought. He's getting way more coverage this debate so if he shows up in 3rd debate on a smaller field things will be interesting. A few of his redirects to UBI felt flat, but some of them worked really well.
His response on medicare for all was great and I thought the best point on the subject. Obviously avoiding the human trauma is the most important reason for medicare for all, but deflecting the moderate attacks on medicare for all by pointing out that employer provided health insurance is a huge burden on businesses is great and a point that's really hard to shoot down.
Less great is telling a massive population to just move to higher ground; even if he's not entirely wrong that we are in the "too late" category of things, that's not really a helpful answer.
|
But you kind of have to live in reality. And if reality is that the place your house is at floods every two years, than you kind of need to build your house at a different place.
The government should probably help with this. But it still needs to happen. Also, maybe this makes you realize that maybe global warming is something you should care about?
|
On August 01 2019 19:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2019 17:34 CorsairHero wrote:On August 01 2019 17:23 Gorsameth wrote:On August 01 2019 17:13 CorsairHero wrote:Doesn't look like those links mention Roth IRA or other retirement accounts. The mean networth of under 35 households is $76200. 45-54 is $727,500 networth statsDisposable Personal Income in the United States increased to 16454.47 USD Billion in June from 16384.73 USD Billion in May of 2019. Disposable Personal Income in the United States averaged 5338.68 USD Billion from 1959 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 16454.47 USD Billion in June of 2019 and a record low of 351.54 USD Billion in January of 1959. tradingeconomics.comDisposable income has been going up for decades Its wonderful that the average American gets payed a salary over the course of a year, because that is all that disposable income is. It doesn't account for expenses, that would be called Discretionary income. Disposable income says nothing about how much a person/family has left after paying their bills, nor are retirement accounts something you should count for paying for a broken washing machine. Net worth also doesn't help. Your house or car is, again, not something that helps to pay for your broken washing machine. It's your choice if you want to lock in your money in a brand new depreciating car. New car sales almost doubled since 2009. Thats a pretty decent indication on the state of the american consumer confidence The not having 500 dollars to cover an expense isn't as much of an indication of the economy as it is a representation of consumer spending habits such as vehicle purchases as mentioned above. Another example is that the average american cellphone life cycle is 21 months which is ridiculous. You incorrectly cited the average... you chose the mean instead of the median (both of which are right on the same site). The median is wayyy lower, as it's resistant to the outliers of the occasional person who's a millionaire or billionaire, which heavily skews the mean upwards. The median is a much more useful average when it comes to looking at pretty much anything involving money, wages, net worth, etc., and it's definitely more relevant when we're already discussing phrases like "the bottom 40%" or "the bottom 60%".
so heres the median
Age 35 or younger: $11,100
Age 35-44: $59,800
Age 45-54: $124,200
Age 55-64: $187,300
Age 65-74: $224,100
Age 75 or older: $264,800
All those groups have positive networth. Not having $500 in cash or liquid assets is a problem with the American personal finance given the huge amount (more than just millenial) that couldn't produce that in an emergency.
Anyways this is only to address the point that someone asked why CNN didn't bring up more of the economy in their debates. A president isn't really going to fix those problems even with higher median networth because you're just going to spend that extra discretionary income like buying new cars (lowers networth every year) and replacing cellphones as the stats show.
|
Canada11279 Posts
Americans make terrible financial choices and I have no doubt that I could turn around the life of pretty much any individual I switched places with. But I’m an outlier and an outsider, this is a macro problem, not a micro one.
Watching Dave Ramsey's clips on youtube can be a very mind boggling experience. People with $30,000 income leasing $50,000 cars while up to their necks in multiple credit card debts. You can raise people's incomes all you want, but you unless you can fix that kind of financial stupidity, they will permanently be debt no matter what they make.
re: Second Debate
I thought Biden did pretty good last night. In 2008, I thought he was at his best as the straight shooting pragmatist, shooting down promises to the moon and saying 'here's what we can actually do.' I thought there was a lot more of that than last time where he was testing the winds too much and trying to following hesitantly. But he can't outflank the progressives and still be taken seriously; it's not his strength. He has to live or die by his mainstream pragmatism. If the Democrat party has moved too far left from that, oh well. Ride or die, it's his path to victory- not suddenly trying to pretend he's a Sanders or a Warren.
I don't agree with Andrew Yang's plan, but I appreciate that he was more able to make his case and naturally tie various issues that would be impacted by his freedom dividend.
Still hate the format- way too directed/ controlled by the moderators and way too many candidates. I appreciate the idea that they are trying to afford maximum opportunity to all candidates, but I cannot wait until we have at least half the numbers of the current.
|
United States41991 Posts
On August 02 2019 04:28 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +Americans make terrible financial choices and I have no doubt that I could turn around the life of pretty much any individual I switched places with. But I’m an outlier and an outsider, this is a macro problem, not a micro one. Watching Dave Ramsey's clips on youtube can be a very mind boggling experience. People with $30,000 income leasing $50,000 cars while up to their necks in multiple credit card debts. You can raise people's incomes all you want, but you unless you can fix that kind of financial stupidity, they will permanently be debt no matter what they make.
I don’t think it’s any more stupid than believing in young earth creationism is. It’s a weird thing that people do because society tells them to do it. Go to church because it’s expected of you. Drive a new car because it’s expected of you. Calling all of these people financial idiots is oversimplifying the problem, especially given that they outnumber the financial geniuses so they are, at worst, financial normals. Americans aren’t intrinsically dumber than other populations, the reason Germans have less debt the Americans isn’t anything to do with stupidity. I don’t think it’s constructive to look at individual failures, we need to look at why America has become a breeding ground for these failures.
|
Capitalism, especially US business, is sorta dependent on "financial idiots" to Kwarks point.
All of the most successful companies in the US are practically dependent on irrational/self-destructive consumers.
+ Show Spoiler +The Top 10
1
Walmart
2
Exxon Mobil
3
Apple
4
Berkshire Hathaway
5
Amazon.com
6
UnitedHealth Group
7
McKesson
8
CVS Health
9
AT&T
10
AmerisourceBergen
More financially literate/resource aware consumers would devastate all of their bottom lines.
|
Canada11279 Posts
Well sure, but just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it any less dumb. And yet because it's not a permanent condition, individuals can change. They can sell the car they can't afford and buy one that is within their means- cash, and work their way up to a better car, etc. But it requires patience and not taking shortcuts, which far too many do.
More financially literate/resource aware consumers would devastate all of their bottom lines.
Don't really care. Markets will adjust. A bad decision is a bad decision regardless of what 'capitalism requires'.
|
On August 02 2019 04:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Capitalism, especially US business, is sorta dependent on "financial idiots" to Kwarks point. All of the most successful companies in the US are practically dependent on irrational/self-destructive consumers. + Show Spoiler +The Top 10
1
Walmart
2
Exxon Mobil
3
Apple
4
Berkshire Hathaway
5
Amazon.com
6
UnitedHealth Group
7
McKesson
8
CVS Health
9
AT&T
10
AmerisourceBergen More financially literate/resource aware consumers would devastate all of their bottom lines.
Yep, the financial circumstances of the lower classes feed directly into the poor financial choices they make. This is why "rational actor" assumptions are pretty flimsy across the board, and practically useless in the context of folks making choices while acting subject to distorting pressures, health problems and living in the financial sweatbox being two of the most prominent. People can talk down to folks who make seemingly stupid financial decisions and emphasize bootstraps all they want, none of that will alleviate the conditions that lead to widespread financial illiteracy, particularly not when there is so much money to be made off the poor. And no, a high school finance 101 class won't do that either.
|
On August 02 2019 04:55 Falling wrote:
Well sure, but just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it any less dumb. And yet because it's not a permanent condition, individuals can change. They can sell the car they can't afford and buy one that is within their means- cash, and work their way up to a better car, etc. But it requires patience and not taking shortcuts, which far too many do.
I think you're missing the point that if most consumers behaved like the "financially literate (or whatever)" the economy as we know it would collapse. The "dumb" individuals are a desired result, not a problem from businesses/economic elites (short term) perspective.
On August 02 2019 04:57 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2019 04:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Capitalism, especially US business, is sorta dependent on "financial idiots" to Kwarks point. All of the most successful companies in the US are practically dependent on irrational/self-destructive consumers. + Show Spoiler +The Top 10
1
Walmart
2
Exxon Mobil
3
Apple
4
Berkshire Hathaway
5
Amazon.com
6
UnitedHealth Group
7
McKesson
8
CVS Health
9
AT&T
10
AmerisourceBergen More financially literate/resource aware consumers would devastate all of their bottom lines. Yep, the financial circumstances of the lower classes feed directly into the poor financial choices they make. This is why "rational actor" assumptions are pretty flimsy across the board, and practically useless in the context of folks making choices while acting subject to distorting pressures, health problems and living in the financial sweatbox being two of the most prominent. People can talk down to folks who make seemingly stupid financial decisions and emphasize bootstraps all they want, none of that will alleviate the conditions that lead to widespread financial illiteracy. And no, a high school finance 101 class won't do that either.
Just to drive it in, the business world needs them to live perpetually in that sweatbox because their profits are dependent on the ill-advised/forced decisions it motivates.
I'm not sure many US companies could actually compete in a fair market if products were scrutinized by a discerning public rather people desperately seeking some level of homeostasis
|
On August 02 2019 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2019 04:55 Falling wrote:
Well sure, but just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it any less dumb. And yet because it's not a permanent condition, individuals can change. They can sell the car they can't afford and buy one that is within their means- cash, and work their way up to a better car, etc. But it requires patience and not taking shortcuts, which far too many do. I think you're missing the point that if most consumers behaved like the "financially literate (or whatever)" the economy as we know it would collapse.
source?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
