|
On November 22 2014 00:04 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +A society that does not naturally reproduce itself it, arguably, facing some difficulties yeah. Same goes the other way around, a society with a too high fertility runs in other problems. As a french, you should be able to sing a song about it, topics would be unemployment rate, education level, inequality level. All things that france suffers from alot more than germany. Apart from the obvious fact that while i agree that the low fertility to some degree is a problem, the other way around (the way france does it) is an inherently flawed system that eventually will collapse too. Your economy is based on domestic consumption powered by population growth. That works for now (more or less) - but it's on a timer. Point being, low fertility is (would be) alot more of a problem for france than it is for germany. Solely based on your economy-system. Show nested quote + For one, there are many kinds of debt in Germany which cannot be repaid early. As a german, i don't know where you got that from, but it's wrong. Pretty much every credit you take can be repaid early (you still have to pay the interest etc, but still), which can't be said for credits in the UK, for example (also from experience). Not to mention that in the UK you have to work with ridiculous APR rates (100% and more are common). Excluding interest rate. I got lucky that my parents helped me out of that (needed credit for moving/furniture since i couldn't bring it all from germany), otherwise i would be screwed for life.
What kind of household did you move that the credit for if would have screwed you for life?
|
On November 22 2014 00:53 Snotling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 00:04 m4ini wrote:A society that does not naturally reproduce itself it, arguably, facing some difficulties yeah. Same goes the other way around, a society with a too high fertility runs in other problems. As a french, you should be able to sing a song about it, topics would be unemployment rate, education level, inequality level. All things that france suffers from alot more than germany. Apart from the obvious fact that while i agree that the low fertility to some degree is a problem, the other way around (the way france does it) is an inherently flawed system that eventually will collapse too. Your economy is based on domestic consumption powered by population growth. That works for now (more or less) - but it's on a timer. Point being, low fertility is (would be) alot more of a problem for france than it is for germany. Solely based on your economy-system. For one, there are many kinds of debt in Germany which cannot be repaid early. As a german, i don't know where you got that from, but it's wrong. Pretty much every credit you take can be repaid early (you still have to pay the interest etc, but still), which can't be said for credits in the UK, for example (also from experience). Not to mention that in the UK you have to work with ridiculous APR rates (100% and more are common). Excluding interest rate. I got lucky that my parents helped me out of that (needed credit for moving/furniture since i couldn't bring it all from germany), otherwise i would be screwed for life. What kind of household did you move that the credit for if would have screwed you for life?
Not entirely sure why i would have to explain to you what exactly i moved/bought, but feel free to do the math: i went from a 39qm appartment to a 160qm house with garden and garage. What do you think?
That's not including my car, which is left hand drive, which is really shitty on right hand drive roads. So include a new (used) car too.
And on top of that, add an APR of 40% +40% interest on it. And that is considered normal. It even get's advertised in TV up and down, with alot higher APR rates.
edit: Renovierungsarbeiten (renovation?) only partially included.
|
On November 21 2014 10:17 Nyxisto wrote: I still think people are looking at the numbers way to uncritically when talking about "decline" in Europe. Sure economic growth sucks, but if you look at the median household income in the US adjusted for purchasing power, it's barely higher than it was three decades ago. What is economic growth good for if it's only fuelled by the money press and inequality and the only real profiteers are 1% of the population? Growth is nice and all but if your housing, healthcare and college costs grow several times as fast as your income it doesn't mean anything at all.
don't ask dangerous questions, Nyxisto. you clearly just don't understand economics
|
On November 22 2014 00:04 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +A society that does not naturally reproduce itself it, arguably, facing some difficulties yeah. Same goes the other way around, a society with a too high fertility runs in other problems. As a french, you should be able to sing a song about it, topics would be unemployment rate, education level, inequality level. All things that france suffers from alot more than germany. Apart from the obvious fact that while i agree that the low fertility to some degree is a problem, the other way around (the way france does it) is an inherently flawed system that eventually will collapse too. Your economy is based on domestic consumption powered by population growth. That works for now (more or less) - but it's on a timer. Point being, low fertility is (would be) alot more of a problem for france than it is for germany. Solely based on your economy-system. Show nested quote + For one, there are many kinds of debt in Germany which cannot be repaid early. As a german, i don't know where you got that from, but it's wrong. Pretty much every credit you take can be repaid early (you still have to pay the interest etc, but still), which can't be said for credits in the UK, for example (also from experience). Not to mention that in the UK you have to work with ridiculous APR rates (100% and more are common). Excluding interest rate. I got lucky that my parents helped me out of that (needed credit for moving/furniture since i couldn't bring it all from germany), otherwise i would be screwed for life. I dont want to be too hard on you but if you think France's fertility is too high and explain unemployment rate you re delusional.
The rest of your post is so german it's offensive. If you think an economy based on domestic consumption powered by population growth is flawed, how do you explain the XIXth and the XXth century... lol. France fertility is not a problem, being low or high, germany on the other side is a problem, because its lack of spendings - that impact on its fertility since there is no support on child education - and its high exportation makes it a clandestine passenger of the euro, profitting from the other's deficit. But I guess only german economists refuse to understand that the excedent of germany is only possible thanks to the spendings (and deficit) of the others (economically responsible) european countries.
|
Croatia679 Posts
soothsayer...still don't get why we allowed them to give each other academic titles...
as long the usa creates war zones on the world and keeps one part under permanent thread germany should be fine thx to weapon selling. still don't get why Canada buying tanks like crazy from Germany but well, just one example.
Historical seen, a country is poor, gets rich, people demand more, people get higher salary, industry finds other place to produce. China is now rising. soon the salary will be so high that our lovely industry will search for other places to produce cheap.
And to topic Germany...Schäuble pulled a lot of tricks to balance the state income. In fact 40% of Germany will be poor when they stop working. Thats already confirmed by the government, just Merkel did not hear it thats why I had to hear "Germany is doing fine..."
|
On November 22 2014 06:42 tadL wrote: soothsayer...still don't get why we allowed them to give each other academic titles...
as long the usa creates war zones on the world and keeps one part under permanent thread germany should be fine thx to weapon selling. still don't get why Canada buying tanks like crazy from Germany but well, just one example.
well, we have been making pretty good tanks for the last 70 or so years
|
Look, if you can you need to buy a house in remote country, buy a gun and sit the collapse out if possible.You do not want to be in the cities when it gets real bad.
Japan raising taxes or meandering around the edges won't do anything.Japans economy peaked when the number of working age people (In the workforce) peaked.Fukushima is still spewing toxic waste, nothing has changed there - the third largest economy in the world is in pretty horrific shape but they're not alone in that regard.
|
On November 21 2014 10:17 Nyxisto wrote: I still think people are looking at the numbers way to uncritically when talking about "decline" in Europe. Sure economic growth sucks, but if you look at the median household income in the US adjusted for purchasing power, it's barely higher than it was three decades ago. What is economic growth good for if it's only fuelled by the money press and inequality and the only real profiteers are 1% of the population? Growth is nice and all but if your housing, healthcare and college costs grow several times as fast as your income it doesn't mean anything at all.
Growing inequality doesn't mean that the top 1% are getting all the benefits of growth. Median household income statistics often don't account for increased public / private benefits (as with census numbers, and which growth helps pay for) or smaller household sizes.
Also, keep in mind that all developed countries have growing retiree populations. If you have no growth, that makes paying for those retirees harder for those still working.
|
On November 23 2014 06:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 10:17 Nyxisto wrote: I still think people are looking at the numbers way to uncritically when talking about "decline" in Europe. Sure economic growth sucks, but if you look at the median household income in the US adjusted for purchasing power, it's barely higher than it was three decades ago. What is economic growth good for if it's only fuelled by the money press and inequality and the only real profiteers are 1% of the population? Growth is nice and all but if your housing, healthcare and college costs grow several times as fast as your income it doesn't mean anything at all.
Growing inequality doesn't mean that the top 1% are getting all the benefits of growth. Median household income statistics often don't account for increased public / private benefits (as with census numbers, and which growth helps pay for) or smaller household sizes. Also, keep in mind that all developed countries have growing retiree populations. If you have no growth, that makes paying for those retirees harder for those still working. The US economy has grown sixteenfold since the 1970s, while median income has not even increase by what, a factor of two? There are a lot of studies out there that show that the now 20ish year olds will not be able to accumulate more wealth than the generation before. This isn't just some kind of "the good old times" illusion. Almost all accumulated wealth over the last few years has gone to the top few percent.
|
On November 23 2014 07:31 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2014 06:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 21 2014 10:17 Nyxisto wrote: I still think people are looking at the numbers way to uncritically when talking about "decline" in Europe. Sure economic growth sucks, but if you look at the median household income in the US adjusted for purchasing power, it's barely higher than it was three decades ago. What is economic growth good for if it's only fuelled by the money press and inequality and the only real profiteers are 1% of the population? Growth is nice and all but if your housing, healthcare and college costs grow several times as fast as your income it doesn't mean anything at all.
Growing inequality doesn't mean that the top 1% are getting all the benefits of growth. Median household income statistics often don't account for increased public / private benefits (as with census numbers, and which growth helps pay for) or smaller household sizes. Also, keep in mind that all developed countries have growing retiree populations. If you have no growth, that makes paying for those retirees harder for those still working. The US economy has grown sixteenfold since the 1970s, while median income has not even increase by what, a factor of two? There are a lot of studies out there that show that the now 20ish year olds will not be able to accumulate more wealth than the generation before. This isn't just some kind of "the good old times" illusion. Almost all accumulated wealth over the last few years has gone to the top few percent. Real GDP per capita has about doubled since the 70's. Median income has grown by less, due to inequality and the non-counting of items like benefits.
Not sure why wealth is the correct measure. A lot of people would rather spend than save. Personally I'd prefer people to save more, but it's their money and their prerogative.
Edit: I should also add that a no-growth economy doesn't free you from inequality. Typically, zero-growth still leaves an economy with productivity and technological advances that lead to unemployment. Typically, unemployment falls harder on lower income jobs. A no-growth economy can therefore be a big problem for those on the low end, rather than just a lack of gains for the already well-off.
|
Obviously a no-growth economy is a non-starter in your world jonny. We don't need you to tell us that.
|
Talk of increasing benefits is also a joke. Healthcare and retirement. Healthcare is a requirement, and US costs are soaring compared to other countries. Getting increased healthcare benefits just means you are getting the same quality of care as you were getting two decades ago, but your employer pays more for it. As for retirement, I shouldn't have to point out that that is a joke. The baby boomers have no retirement savings. Reverse mortgages are going through the roof as boomers sell back their house to the finance industry in order to survive into old age. What great "benefits."
|
On November 24 2014 09:07 IgnE wrote: Talk of increasing benefits is also a joke. Healthcare and retirement. Healthcare is a requirement, and US costs are soaring compared to other countries. Getting increased healthcare benefits just means you are getting the same quality of care as you were getting two decades ago, but your employer pays more for it. As for retirement, I shouldn't have to point out that that is a joke. The baby boomers have no retirement savings. Reverse mortgages are going through the roof as boomers sell back their house to the finance industry in order to survive into old age. What great "benefits." Real numbers account for healthcare cost inflation. My statements were factual.
|
What does that mean jonny? Are you translating life expectancy into dollars? Quality of life? What does it mean to say that you are receiving more in healthcare benefits when healthcare costs more money?
|
On November 24 2014 11:09 IgnE wrote: What does that mean jonny? Are you translating life expectancy into dollars? Quality of life? What does it mean to say that you are receiving more in healthcare benefits when healthcare costs more money? You can adjust for inflation. Real means that the figures have been adjusted for inflation. You can look at what people made in terms of wages and benefits, understand that some of the increase is due to inflationary effects, and adjust accordingly.
|
What does it mean to be purchasing more real healthcare? What does it mean to say that healthcare inflation has gone up 10%, healthcare benefits have gone up 20% and that people are now receiving 9% more real healthcare?
|
Discussing numbers really is a little futile. 20 or 30 years ago a single earner could pay for a complete household often without an academic background. Today your average college graduates can barely pay for a family if both work while Bill Gates personal wealth equals the economic size of small countries. "wow, big TV's have gotten really cheap!" isn't really an argument given these developments.
|
On November 24 2014 11:28 IgnE wrote: What does it mean to be purchasing more real healthcare? What does it mean to say that healthcare inflation has gone up 10%, healthcare benefits have gone up 20% and that people are now receiving 9% more real healthcare? Exactly that. Not sure what you aren't getting... is this like a 'we're in the Matrix and there is no spoon' thing?
|
On November 24 2014 11:36 Nyxisto wrote: Discussing numbers really is a little futile. 20 or 30 years ago a single earner could pay for a complete household often without an academic background. Today your average college graduates can barely pay for a family if both work while Bill Gates personal wealth equals the economic size of small countries. "wow, big TV's have gotten really cheap!" isn't really an argument given these developments. Fiction. A 'complete household' in the 70's is not a 'complete household' in 2014.
|
On November 24 2014 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2014 11:36 Nyxisto wrote: Discussing numbers really is a little futile. 20 or 30 years ago a single earner could pay for a complete household often without an academic background. Today your average college graduates can barely pay for a family if both work while Bill Gates personal wealth equals the economic size of small countries. "wow, big TV's have gotten really cheap!" isn't really an argument given these developments. Fiction. A 'complete household' in the 70's is not a 'complete household' in 2014.
Care to elaborate? I'd bet most people would trade their smartphone for their 50k college debt, a house and two cars.
|
|
|
|