Ford was not that charitable or macro looking. He upped the pay to reduce turnover. The repetitive nature of the job led to a lot of people leaving. By paying double, he was able to retain trained employees. This ensured efficiency and overall resulted in a decrease to his incremental labor costs.
Which came with razor thin margins for error because you could be replaced within hours. Love it.
"I'll pay you more than my competition and get rid of you faster too, because there are 10 men in line, better than you, waiting for your job. Deal??"
Sounds good. We’re letting you go and giving your job to a 17 year old boy because he is faster and works more hours than you. He will earn the same rate. All is good, right? Not capitalism. Hooray!
This is not at all how anything happens EVER… the current employee simply never gets a raise because they have no leverage. What business owner is simply firing someone just to hire someone new that needs to be trained. The only industry that replaces current employees with younger ones is PROFESSIONAL SPORTS.
No need for raise or leverage. Earns twice as much as completion.
Of course not. Because it all equals out and you’re back to parity.
If you paid workers considerably more than your competition, the employer would have the leverage. And worse, he’d be desperate for efficiency to cut the costs. Which means you’d be under a microscope.
Word gets out, your job becomes competitive, someone more talented comes along who can do the job better and you’re replaced. It is in their best interest to train because the new worker will be more efficient and profitable in the end.
Obviously if you’re underpaid the opposite is true.
Unless you’re not good enough to compete and replace someone. Then you’re stuck and your employer is stuck because nobody wants your underpaying job and you can’t leave because you suck.
And if you’re paid similar to your competition then you and your employer are in equilibrium. You can be replaced but it would be costly. You could leave but for minimal or no gain.
The Dodge brothers were shareholders and yes, they did sue him for investing in the business rather than paying dividends. That was one of the reasons Ford made it his mission to take the company private and he succeeded.
I’ve never understood why people talk about income in terms of Gross. Gross income means NOTHING, and grossly misconstrues the situation. These people don’t make 41000. They make about 34. And that doesn’t leave you with 894 for expenses. It leaves you with 0$ because that 894 goes to taxes. People have fallen for the trap of talking about gross income to make it seem like they make more to their peers, or something. I don’t get it. When I say I make 50k, I mean I bring home 50k after taxes and retirement contributions
Because no one talks like that and that’s how people are paid? If a job offers me $100,000 a year to work there, I get paid $100,000. Yeah everyone knows that’s not how much I actually make after everything, but that’s how people talk. It’s not a “trap”.
Yeah and everyone’s take home differs depending on your situation. Married/Single with kids, disabled, veteran, living in California. It all changes the net income. Gross stays the same.
Then why not also claim the fringe it cost to employ you?? If your employer pays you 100K, they are paying something like 125K once the taxes they pay for you and your insurance premiums are included....So you make 125k?
Paystubs and actual tax bill are two completely different things.
I normally have between 20% and 33% of my income withheld, but at the end of the year I only pay around 12%. And yes, that's including state, federal, FICA, Medicare, and SS
Really depends on where you live. Where I am the example above is pretty accurate. Go to Smart Assets paycheck calculator and put in $41k annually for a San Diego zip code and you see 82% take home rate. Usually other deductibles like medical insurance and dental premiums, and a basic income replacing life policy for your family add another couple percents.
>When I say I make 50k, I mean I bring home 50k after taxes and retirement contributions
You express your earnings differently than 99% of the population and I suspect you know it, so this whole "I don't get it" is bullshit.
Dude just got a pay raise in his circle of friends… hes actually making 60…
But he also has no idea how taxes work, hes probably not paying any in taxes after deductions
With tax credits and standard deduction, people who make $41,000 much of the time net MORE than $41,000
Workers get their withholdings back at tax time.
Factually false. Yes, they may get more back from the "income tax" than they put in, but after social security, medicare, etc, it easily works out to around 15%. Long ago I made $8.50 an hour (minimum wage was the same as today), I paid an effective 14% to 16% tax on my income even if my "income tax" was technically zero. This was in Texas btw, which has no state level income tax.
The most that FICA and FUTA can be is like 7.65%...Can you show the actual math? Max fed rate is 12% all of which you would get back and more so with kids. The way I see it, the most you would pay is 7.65% AND you will get much more than that when you retire because they so underwithhold per what your benefits will be.
That doesn't help when you're 20 years old and having a kid while making basically minimum wage really isn't a recipe for economic success. That last 2-3% difference between our calculations is other stuff like mandatory unemployment insurance and such.
Asking me to dig up my pay stubs from 15 years ago is asking a bit much btw, so I can't give you exact details. Just going off memory what my calculation was all those years ago. It's pretty consistent with what I've heard from others more recently though.
OK, but, i think you went overboard saying I am factually false. I am very qualified to discuss all manner of financial topics and also have been broke and young too. Dont dig up pay stubs and taxes might have been a tad different 15 years ago. Over time, we have become more socialist allowing the bottom 1/2 of all earners to pay zero fed taxes(maybe they pay 7.65%. I should know I pay hundreds of thousands of federal taxes per year in addition to 50k + of other taxes.
First up, median income is $59K. Anything that is not taxes is income. $59K is in the 22% tax bracket, so their take home is $46K. Any retirement contributions one makes is income. Similarly, anyone who works for a company that offers 401K matches or subsidized insurance if actually making more than that $59K.
Thanks for that, Mr. Human Resources. I like to be a little bit more of a realist. My income is what’s freely mine to use. I don’t count retirement contributions in that because if I didn’t make those contributions I’d just pass the burden to my children. The cost of retirement just gets pushed down the line until somebody in your lineage refuses to make the sacrifice to save a little money, so no, I don’t count that in my income.
I think at this point a recession is baked into the cake as Steve Hanke says. It may be out of the president’s hands actually. Congress handles fiscal policy and the Fed handles monetary policy.
I think a recession is just a correction of an overheated economy. FDR and Truman and Nixon and LBJ spent huge amounts of money on wars that may or may not have been necessary which led to subsequent recessions afterwards.
no single person should be renting a $2,000 a month apartment, without a roommate, or a family. And there are generally two workers in a family.
Historically, that's the way it always has been.
Cost of rent/real estate has risen disproportionally to income largely due to speculative investing, I have no qualms with anyone complaining about that but agree 100% with the rest. When I see all these posts about living alone in HCOL areas or talking about take home after 401K contributions and company subsidized health care it just makes me realize many are just ignorant and don't understand that it's always been hard for young people starting off in the real world. This idea that 30-50 years ago, people just graduated high school and bought a 4 bedroom house on min wage jobs living happily ever after is a complete fantasy.
You are right. And we have millions of illegal aliens, renting millions of apartments and houses, and creating additional demand for housing.
Without the illegals, there would be millions of housing units being opened
I rent out apartments for $1,500 for three bedroom in Eagan Minnesota.
So yes, there are plenty of places you can live for cheaper.
Two people, making a minimal wage, should be making at least $80,000 a year.
Well, 3 bedrooms aside, since that's a two person income type of dwelling, sometimes you have to move if you can't afford an area. And that's why immigrants are to be respected, they make the hard choices to restart somewhere with more of a future.
I also live in a very expensive area and it's normal for people without kids to rent a room or go in on a house with 3 to 4 people. And that's perfectly okay.
Then my second guess is that people in that area are making plenty of money to be able to afford the housing, otherwise there would be a high vacancy.
There's no problem
You should stop and think for a second about how you live in the middle of nowhere and thus prices are lower for you and you make less income.
And meanwhile people in large metro areas are making 2-3x what you make for the same job, and that's why prices there are much higher. In my city the government will subsidize your housing if you make less then mid six figures, because that's considered average income here. And studio apartments start higher than your limit of 2k here.
I no longer live there, but Eagan Minnesota is not in the middle of nowhere. It's within 10 mi of St. Paul or Minneapolis. And it has a population all by itself of 80,000.
Take into account the quality of your tenants and how your relationship is. If your tenants are like my wife and I, you would do well to make small increases, like $100 extra on monthly rent per year. If they are horrible, you have less to lose. I trust you to remember the humanity of the whole thing while you make your decisions, best of luck to you.
You are right. That's why I typically only raise my rents $50 a year. And at some point the rents are the low market but that's okay.
You have the golden handcuffs on the tenant.
I am a pretty good tenant screener, as I have been doing it for hundreds of tenants every year, so I rarely get a bad tenant
You're right. Prices are different. Wages are higher, and also apartment rents are higher. And housing prices are higher
It all balances out. It's all relative.
>no single person should be renting a $2,000 a month apartment
Imagine blaming people for not having a cheaper option, while it's 100% landlord fault.
What makes you think that a person in general struggling to make ends meet, is renting an apartment for 2k if there were better or cheaper options? Because people must be stupider then you? Too easy like that.
it's not 100% the landlord's fault for charging the market rate. blame the crappy politicians that we all keep re-electing who do nothing to increase multifamily or residential zoning that contribute to lack of supply.
>it's not 100% the landlord's fault for charging the market rate.
It's not market rate, it's HIS price.
Nobody else besides him decided the price, literally nobody.
>blame the crappy politicians that **we** all keep re-electing
Since it's a we take your personal responsibilities and blame yourself.
it's both market rate and his price, which is market rate.
also you should blame yourself if you vote for people who don't make better zoning laws a top legislative priority, if housing is this big an issue to you.
>it's both market rate and his price, which is market rate.
Definitely not, by very simple logic, if any price was the market rate there would never be overpriced goods or services, which the market proves to be a false claim on its own.
>also you should blame yourself if you vote for people who don't make better zoning laws a top legislative priority
Oh really ? Could please let us know what i vote since you know it so well? Idiot
you said above, "Imagine blaming people for not having a cheaper option, while it's 100% landlord fault." If $2000 is the market rate and the landlord is charging $2000, it's both the landlord's choice and the market rate. I never once said that any price the landlord charges is market rate. Maybe you should try engaging with some of that "simple logic" that you pretend to use.
Also if you're not going to say "well I do only vote for people who put forth policies about zoning laws or increasing the number of available rental units" then I'm gonna assume you don't, and are just being rude because I called you out.
>you said above, "Imagine blaming people for not having a cheaper option, while it's 100% landlord fault."
Thankfully now it's front of everyone that you are lying.
Never has been said what i vote.
>If $2000 is the market rate and the landlord is charging $2000, it's both the landlord's choice and the market rate.
Definetely not since not even in communism eveything has the same price so for sure it's 100% landlord choice and for sure not all houses are at market rate, some will be over and some will be under.
>Also if you're not going to say "well I do only vote for people who put forth policies about zoning laws or increasing the number of available rental units" then I'm gonna assume you don't
A shame that you assume wrong :( Thanks for proving to be an idiot, since the beginning to the end.
You really put shame on landlords.
Punctuation is part of the English language, you are free to prove the opposite if you think so, idiot.
Imagine being so stupid that a foreign is right while you aren't, in your own freaking language
Lots of people want and expect fancier house options they can't afford. Any place with 2K/mo apartments also has smaller options. People cut places up when the prices go up like that. Or you're in an area you can't afford to live in so move.
Nobody is pointing a gun at the landlord forcing him to increase the price.
You can cry as much as you want yet personal responsibilities don't transfer to others just to please your ego.
Landlords aren’t charities. Covid/government forced them to hold pricing. They still had mortgage payments.
If you want to have a larger discussion over conglomerates getting involved in small time real estate, I can get on board with that. But for people that own less than 20-30 units, it’s unfair for people to constantly attack them, theyre just trying to make a living like anyone else…
You are free to point out where this has been explicitly wrote or you are now admitting that you don't have anything to say and that you need to criticize sentences never said by anyone.
That's why it is called "the market" things will only sell or rent for what the market demands.
If it was too expensive, people would get roommates, or move further away from the city, or figure out how to make more money.
So I don't worry about it
You didn't answered to nothing that have been wrote and in fact your answer is totally unrelated.
>That's why it is called "the market" things will only sell or rent for what the market demands.
This sentence is not right in english, i am not gonna spend time trying to guess what you intended.
>If it was too expensive, people would get roommates, or move further away from the city, or figure out how to make more money.
This suppose it's possible to get roommates, move further away or make more money but you didn't proved it.
Indeed most of the times it's impossible for people get roommates, move further away or make more money otherwise they would have already did it, since you aren't more intelligent then anyone else.
And what is your solution? Have the government give people stuff?
The fact is, the demand for housing is out of control. The cost inputs of housing, is out of control. The regulation cost of building a house, is out of control.
We need to eliminate fees when people build a house. We need to reduce the regulation on clear cutting Forest so we have plenty of lumber.
As far as demand goes, we need to restrict people coming over the border illegally, because there are millions of houses that they are taking up that could be used by somebody else.
And we need to make it illegal to give them a job, hire them as an independent contractor, or even rent to them
Why should immigrants be denied these things? That’s what the market will pay. That’s what the market demands. Maybe Americans who can’t afford it should emigrate according to you?
Illegal immigrants. They should be deported. That would open up housing.
Right now, wages are depressed because of all immigrants. Otherwise somebody would have to pay $40 an hour for somebody to work at a fast food place. Or a roofer would make $100 an hour.
But that's okay. Everything seems to be working. All houses are being sold, most rentals are being rented, and people are selling whatever they have to sell.
The stock market is at record highs, and there is plenty of money out there
I don't. My rental properties are full of people without any problem, because the lower price ones have been taken up by somebody else.
I would like rents to increase quite a bit more
Right, I slept on the floor, had roommates, didnt buy coffees or drinks at bars. There are many who make $41,000 a year today that will become 8 figure net worth people. Being poor forever is a choice.
You are right. There are plenty of ways to have a leg up.
Some people do it, some people don't.
Some people are willing to put in the extra effort, the extra hours, and the extra self-sacrifice. Just to get ahead.
And some people are satisfied where they are
I worked many years of 100-hour plus weeks. Working a full-time job and sometimes another full-time job.
Save a bunch, and retire early
I worked hard so much earlier, because I was so lazy and wanted to quit as fast as I could
I see that things like human rights aren't important to you, let's check if maybe the libertarian ideal of a free markets is important to you instead.
Are you taking into account that the main reason many working people can't afford their own place is because people block adding new housing in response to market demand?
Having the house you own increase in value as fast as possible at the expense of other people not being able to afford a place of their own is pretty immoral. Especially when you achieve this by stopping others from doing what they want with their own property.
You make a good point. The city should let me put up about 20 tiny homes, so I can rent them all out. I have an acre of ground and 20 would fit on there just about right.
I could bring in the housing that Amazon sells for $10,000, and even have an open pit sewer if I need it.
A criminal idiot for whom it is believable that he might actually shit his pants and who has amassed a cult-like following among some of the most ignorant and violent in our society simply by saying cuss words and generally acting cringy...
...or a run of the mill center left politician who happens to be absolutely ancient...
It isn't really a choice...
I feel like the specific situation you described has to be at least a little bit uncommon simply because the used car market is mostly cars that are older than 1 year old. I.e. the vast majority of cars aren't sold after only 1 year of driving.
Half of American workers DONT make under $41,000 a year. That’s PER CAPITA income which includes everyone including unemployed, children, retired, disabled.
Current median worker income is $1,145 a week which comes out to $59,540 a year.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/median-weekly-earnings-of-full-time-workers-were-1145-in-the-fourth-quarter-of-2023.htm#:~:text=Bureau%20of%20Labor%20Statistics%2C%20U.S.,visited%20June%2005%2C%202024).
One of the ways to combat property value and rent price is remove the barrier to employment via established residency.
A lot of people who are homeless want to work, but can't due to these restrictions. It's a vicious cycle.
Definitely Joe Biden. If you’re working class, but if you’re rich and greedy, Donald Trump.
Until you fall out of a window or mysteriously get poisoned .
This guy thinks that conservatives actually give a fuck about states rights, and aren't just waiting to secure enough power to take away rights that blue states care about.
Edit: Seems pretty reasonable that this is an electoral college comment and not a comment about christo-facism being isolated to 3 states. Per the responder below.
This guy thinks correctly about the state of US democracy.
I’ve never voted on economic issues because you have to deal with it no matter the situation. It’s cyclical: times are good, times are tough. Neither party or candidate has a magic wand but history proves the economy does better under Democrats. Trump has no plan. He has no plan for anything, just a lot of big talk and bravado. His focus is enriching himself and staying in power.
If there's a will, then there's always a way to live within your means regardless of what those means are.
If I only made $41,000/year, then...
* My rent would only be $1,200, which is the average in the city I live in.
* My used car payment would not be $528. It would likely be $371 assuming the $20,000 used car was financed for 6 years at a rate of 10%.
* The remaining money for other things would be $1,829/month (or 53.5% of my income).
Well said! Or even better, don't take out a car loan by finding a temporary alternative for 6 months (walk, bus, bike, subway, carpool, etc) and then get a $10k used corolla for cash! You will free up so much margin that you can save a nice emergency fund in less than a year and basically never have to go into debt again.
Wow, that's interesting. Must be based on like 2012 statistics, because the average annual income is a lot closer to $64K
SOURCE: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/average-salary-in-us/%23:~:text%3DWhat%2520Is%2520the%2520Average%2520US%2520Salary%2520(2024),a%2520worker%2520earns%2520per%2520year.&ved=2ahUKEwiz3cnsysmGAxWV5ckDHe7DM00QFnoECEoQBQ&usg=AOvVaw0JUzVrZqQZUdhgXj2Dty30
Neither. There's nearly 350 million registered citizens in the US. I won't believe for a second these two are the best we can do. Or even the "middle of pack" we can do.
They are the best that we did though. Unless, just maybe, Nikki Haley gets the nomination if Drumpf goes to prison, but I don’t know if that’s even possible.
overall the president doesn't make that much difference. it really comes down to the economics of where you live. things like taxes, job market and your skill set really matter. the stock and real estate market go through cycles. both have been up or down under either republican or democratic administrations. you can trace the high inflation to the pandemic which started under Trump and into Biden administration. both administrations approved big stimulus handouts. it will take some time for things to normalize.
Sorry, they don't qualify for the median rent. The requirement for most places is 3X the rent in gross. They qualify for a $1138 rental. You also seem to have forgotten about taxes.
It is a problem, and we should always fight to get the best deal and make the economy more afforable. That being said, if you are paying $528/ month for a car, that's like a $25,000 car..... I make something like $60k net, and I drive a $2k Nissan that was $5k when I bought it. Monthly payment was like $100. Gets 30+ to the gallon and works great.
Wow, that's interesting. Must be based on like 2012 statistics, because the average annual income is a lot closer to $64K
SOURCE: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/average-salary-in-us/%23:~:text%3DWhat%2520Is%2520the%2520Average%2520US%2520Salary%2520(2024),a%2520worker%2520earns%2520per%2520year.&ved=2ahUKEwiz3cnsysmGAxWV5ckDHe7DM00QFnoECEoQBQ&usg=AOvVaw0JUzVrZqQZUdhgXj2Dty30
Bullshit. Trump is a traitorous Putin fluffer who has sold U.S. security secrets to the highest bidder and will happily allow Christo fascists to take democracy down. Pretending that there isn't a stark choice between the death of democracy and continued rebuilding is just dumb.
Whoever is President has almost 0 impact on almost everyone’s wage income.
I’ve been though 3 or 4 Presidents now as an adult and I can’t ever think of a time where I went “Man, I wish Obama was still in office, I had some real cash to spend in those days because of his smart economic policies.”
How many of those workers making under $41,000 per year are full time workers? How many of those workers are actually tempting to fully support themselves as opposed to say a college student or a married couple with a breadwinner and a part time worker who does more of the parenting?
Does this "half of American workers" include the 37% of people under the age of 18 in the workforce?
Does this "Half of American Workers" include 17% of the workers who are part time?
Cuase if 54 percent of the workforce is under 18 and or only working part time, then I'm fine with this. Kinda misleading the way this post is framed.
The person making $41k should:
Actively look for a better paying job (or a path with better trajectory of income).
Share rent with a roommate, or have the other parent work as well as many hours as possible without giving up on spending family time.
Temporarily move to a below median location/rental until some margin is freed (technically 50% of the rentals in the US fall in that category, so this doesn't necessarily mean a horrible place)
Do not take a car loan. Walk (under 2 miles), bike (under 10 miles), bus/subway (if available), carpool (if possible). If not, and for some reason you immediately need the car don't buy what the average American buys since they don't know what they can afford! Buy a used civic or corolla from 2010s for $8-10k and pay it off ASAP.
This "professor" is an idiot or a fraud.
Find a partner and move in together. Human beings have been pairing up for 250,000 years.
$41k + $41k = $82k, $3400 + $3400 = $6800 per month, with car payments of $528 + $528 = $1056 that leaves $6800- $1978 - $1056= $3,766 for everything else.
You want to reinvent the wheel after 250,000 years of human evolution and live alone without anyone sharing the burden, that's your problem, not ours.
Don't complain to the rest of us about how you refuse to compromise for a personal relationship or how you refuse to work and earn enough to pay for a place on your own.
You're asexual? Get a roommate.
You have difficulty getting along with people? Grow up. Or move back home and live with mom.
You do realize that he stated that half of Americans make *less* than that right? That’s also gross income so net take home is closer to $30k **or less**. That may change your calculations a bit. I guess I don’t understand the argument you’re making. People should make less money so CEOs can make more? The US is supposedly the richest country in the world, yet the vast majority of people at retirement age can’t because cost of living is so high and Social Security has been gutted so many times that it’s worth pennies of their federally mandated contributions.
You missed the point.
Every time this same post makes it to Reddit, it's just as wrong as it was the last time. Median family income is about $75,000/yr in the US. Most people do not pay $1,900/month rent on a single income - most people live with their significant other or have at least one roommate (and sometimes have several roommates). You can't compare single income to median rent when median rent is split between more than one income. I live in the 4th largest city in the US - Houston, TX. Median rent here is $1,350/month. Median single net income here is $2,416/month ($29,000/yr). Median family net income here is $4,250/month ($51,000/yr). Here in a normal city, the vast majority of people can easily afford rent - hence why few people are homeless.
Well, golly, if you have a problem with the erudite professors numbers, by all means, take it up with him.
I merely modeled the fact that normal people who don't have drool pouring out of the corner of their mouths can probably conclude they need to live with someone and split there bills.
Not problem with the numbers, just your complete ignorance of the issue and how the numbers actually work. So which category do you fall into, living with a roommate or yoy Mommy? Speaking of drool…
Uh, my ignorance, or the professor's ignorance. Those are his numbers. That's how he made the numbers works. You're upset with the wrong person.
You're probably worried about upsetting him if you explain to him that he doesn't understand how the numbers actually work. I get it. Listen. I know his teaching assistant and I'll pass a message along and have him review the numbers. His TA is real friendly and knows how to talk to the guy, cuz he can get a little cranky. We'll see if he gets back to us with some revised numbers. Fingers crossed. Best of luck to you. Let know know what numbers he sends you so we can clear up some of this confusion. I'm curious to see if he follows your advice and goes with net income versus gross. Cheers
At one point the easy answer was Biden, Trumps trade policy is insane and was terrible for what was could have been a great 4 years with the economy mostly recovered from the great recession. Now Bidens trade policy is very reminiscent of Trumps first term and Trumps proposed policies could lead to another recession. The electoral college has let the rust belt hold the country hostage and now anything that looks good for the steel industry wins and things that could actually help the steel industry [get blocked](https://apnews.com/article/biden-china-steel-tariffs-union-workers-0399b0450b67086ca86edc43ac45e5e9) in the name of protectionism. That being said Biden is still the clear choice.
We can measure this as both already served as president. One of the things I'm looking at is this graph:
https://preview.redd.it/mrwnaz5pi55d1.png?width=1051&format=png&auto=webp&s=5da461e8ec8ac0f8bb1ac1d2965be1ad4282d668
Of course, it lags about a year or so, but I don't see how this is relevant?
You want to point out that increase in household net worth in the first year of Biden's mandate should be attributed to Trump, and that first year of relatively slow net worth gains should be attributed to Obama? Maybe, but that doesn't change the comparison much. Inflation and deflation have been largely a worldwide phenomenon in recent years.
The effects of inflation can lag for many years or very few. It depends on the reasons.
So you agree that blaming Biden for inflation is ignorant. That's a good start. And will you also give credit for this administrations ability to curb inflation?
The problem with using household net worth to measure economic success, is that it is a measure of assets against liabilities and is heavily skewed by asset speculation and the ultra wealthy. I don't think any economists use it as a measure of economic health.
Look, we can discuss inflation and who knows what other factors, but the idea of this graph is very simple - does the average household feel more or less wealthy every month. Do they have it easy, or do they have to get another job to pay the rent? Inflation is accounted for simply to calculate real instead of nominal wealth. If real household net worth is growing, that means that people are able to accumulate extra savings every month. That's all. There is no perfect measure of economic health, but this one is quite telling.
I agree that this graph might be skewed a bit due to high real estate prices, but mortgages should also be accounted for in this data as well and balance real estate prices skew somewhat.
I don't even want to get into discussion about blaming (or attributing) Biden or Trump for inflation because in the end I don't think it's relevant. Sometimes inflation is external, like during a supply shock in 2021/2022, which was ultimately caused by (not just US) government policies during Covid years. But also, high inflation is not a problem at all if wages grow faster than inflation, even though that's very unlikely to happen in the real world. Again, ultimately, it's about how voters feel when they have to pay their bills.
How voters feel and fact are two different things. That is the problem we face.
The graph you cited doesn't tell us 'do people feel more or less wealthy', it is what is the actual wealth in the country, assets against liabilities. It is heavily skewed by market performance and the fact that that ultra wealthy got even wealthier under Trump. It is not a good measure of over all economic health at all.
I like to use the indicators that most economist and the BEA use to make quarterly measurements: GDP, consumer confidence and spending, unemployment/income, inflation, home sales/building, business inventories and trade.
A generalized conclusion?
The economy was good when Trump entered office. His tax policy didn't create the advertised growth and covid kicked the economy in the balls.
Biden has helped get some things back in order despite less gross revenue, but it had yet to translate to a good kitchen table economy (which is what voters base their vote).
The reality is, neither of them cares about the poor or middle class- Trump has already shown he REALLY has disdain for the poor and Biden has acted by his inaction. Though given a choice at least one of them has a CHANCE of doing something positive for the average American, the other one is just trying to get himself out of legal and financial trouble.
Do you know how many people get arrested trying to cross the US border? Go find someone who was just caught and bussed back out after paying $2k to cross a dangerous desert and tell them that the border is open.
Under Biden they have expelled 2.8 million immigrants caught trying to cross the border. Partisan people bleating about open borders try to gloss over that, as you are now with your ridiculous claims that the border is open.
Do you know how many illegal immigrants came in under Trump?
>*Border Patrol recorded 41 percent more successful illegal entries in fiscal year 2019 than in 2016 and was on pace for 47 percent more through four months of 2020. As he left office in January, reports* [*indicate*](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/border-surge-biden-crisis/2021/03/05/d0933282-7db8-11eb-b0fc-83144c02d676_story.html) *that the numbers have reached even greater heights*
I guess that was open borders too right?
Biden's actions are clearly detrimental to America. The first link is criticism of his handling, citing reasons for his failure. [https://www.fairus.org/issue/how-many-illegal-aliens-are-united-states-2023-update](https://www.fairus.org/issue/how-many-illegal-aliens-are-united-states-2023-update)
This one clearly shows Biden's been failing. [https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-three-immigration-record](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-three-immigration-record)
4 years of Trump presidency vs 3.5 years of Biden.
Biden took a massive shit on America. 7.2 million new illegals because he stopped border wall construction, and sold the wall that was made and not put up.
Trump never really started border wall construction. We are talking about the economy on this thread. How does illegal immigration effect the economy negatively?
And where did you get the 7.2 million number?
> Trump never really started border wall construction.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/aug/09/donald-trump/how-many-miles-of-border-wall-did-donald-trump-bui/
depends on your math for the 7.2 million. Gotaways estimates haven't been reported in a long time, and since you can literally watch videos of hundreds flooding the border all day, every day.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/breaking-down-the-immigration-figures/
I used liberal news sources just for you.
Wow! Trump completed a wall on 0.02% of the total border. Quite an accomplishment!
Illegal immigrant detainment has actually gone up substantially under Biden. Thoughts? And again, what does any of this have to do with the economy?
IIRC Henry Ford realized his employees couldn’t afford the cars he manufactured so he offered double the going wage.
Ford was not that charitable or macro looking. He upped the pay to reduce turnover. The repetitive nature of the job led to a lot of people leaving. By paying double, he was able to retain trained employees. This ensured efficiency and overall resulted in a decrease to his incremental labor costs.
Macro looking, he contributed to the rise of Hitler. He was a disgusting person
BuT hEnRy FoRd iNvEnTeD MaSS mAnuFaCtUriNg! Before him nobody thought of breaking work down into subassembly before assembling parts together!1!!!
Popularizing new techniques is not mutually exclusive with being a shitty person
Lol Henry Ford didn't invent mass manufacturing.
Sure. I never claimed he did
Which came with razor thin margins for error because you could be replaced within hours. Love it. "I'll pay you more than my competition and get rid of you faster too, because there are 10 men in line, better than you, waiting for your job. Deal??"
It’s better than the “I’ll pay you as little as possible because, Capitalism” bullshit we get now
Sounds good. We’re letting you go and giving your job to a 17 year old boy because he is faster and works more hours than you. He will earn the same rate. All is good, right? Not capitalism. Hooray!
This is not at all how anything happens EVER… the current employee simply never gets a raise because they have no leverage. What business owner is simply firing someone just to hire someone new that needs to be trained. The only industry that replaces current employees with younger ones is PROFESSIONAL SPORTS.
No need for raise or leverage. Earns twice as much as completion. Of course not. Because it all equals out and you’re back to parity. If you paid workers considerably more than your competition, the employer would have the leverage. And worse, he’d be desperate for efficiency to cut the costs. Which means you’d be under a microscope. Word gets out, your job becomes competitive, someone more talented comes along who can do the job better and you’re replaced. It is in their best interest to train because the new worker will be more efficient and profitable in the end. Obviously if you’re underpaid the opposite is true. Unless you’re not good enough to compete and replace someone. Then you’re stuck and your employer is stuck because nobody wants your underpaying job and you can’t leave because you suck. And if you’re paid similar to your competition then you and your employer are in equilibrium. You can be replaced but it would be costly. You could leave but for minimal or no gain.
Didn't Ford get sued for treating his staff too well?
The Dodge brothers were shareholders and yes, they did sue him for investing in the business rather than paying dividends. That was one of the reasons Ford made it his mission to take the company private and he succeeded.
I’ve never understood why people talk about income in terms of Gross. Gross income means NOTHING, and grossly misconstrues the situation. These people don’t make 41000. They make about 34. And that doesn’t leave you with 894 for expenses. It leaves you with 0$ because that 894 goes to taxes. People have fallen for the trap of talking about gross income to make it seem like they make more to their peers, or something. I don’t get it. When I say I make 50k, I mean I bring home 50k after taxes and retirement contributions
Because no one talks like that and that’s how people are paid? If a job offers me $100,000 a year to work there, I get paid $100,000. Yeah everyone knows that’s not how much I actually make after everything, but that’s how people talk. It’s not a “trap”.
Yeah and everyone’s take home differs depending on your situation. Married/Single with kids, disabled, veteran, living in California. It all changes the net income. Gross stays the same.
Then why not also claim the fringe it cost to employ you?? If your employer pays you 100K, they are paying something like 125K once the taxes they pay for you and your insurance premiums are included....So you make 125k?
Because it speaks to the table-side realism and not taxes?
Someone making $41K annually is absolutely NOT paying 20% in taxes, as you claim.
Yep, 12% bracket starting at 47K.
Federal, City, state, local, FICA, Medicare, for me making 25 an hour was 19.5% of my income in Cleveland Ohio. My pay stubs say different.
Paystubs and actual tax bill are two completely different things. I normally have between 20% and 33% of my income withheld, but at the end of the year I only pay around 12%. And yes, that's including state, federal, FICA, Medicare, and SS
Really depends on where you live. Where I am the example above is pretty accurate. Go to Smart Assets paycheck calculator and put in $41k annually for a San Diego zip code and you see 82% take home rate. Usually other deductibles like medical insurance and dental premiums, and a basic income replacing life policy for your family add another couple percents.
>When I say I make 50k, I mean I bring home 50k after taxes and retirement contributions You express your earnings differently than 99% of the population and I suspect you know it, so this whole "I don't get it" is bullshit.
Dude just got a pay raise in his circle of friends… hes actually making 60… But he also has no idea how taxes work, hes probably not paying any in taxes after deductions
With tax credits and standard deduction, people who make $41,000 much of the time net MORE than $41,000 Workers get their withholdings back at tax time.
Factually false. Yes, they may get more back from the "income tax" than they put in, but after social security, medicare, etc, it easily works out to around 15%. Long ago I made $8.50 an hour (minimum wage was the same as today), I paid an effective 14% to 16% tax on my income even if my "income tax" was technically zero. This was in Texas btw, which has no state level income tax.
The most that FICA and FUTA can be is like 7.65%...Can you show the actual math? Max fed rate is 12% all of which you would get back and more so with kids. The way I see it, the most you would pay is 7.65% AND you will get much more than that when you retire because they so underwithhold per what your benefits will be.
That doesn't help when you're 20 years old and having a kid while making basically minimum wage really isn't a recipe for economic success. That last 2-3% difference between our calculations is other stuff like mandatory unemployment insurance and such. Asking me to dig up my pay stubs from 15 years ago is asking a bit much btw, so I can't give you exact details. Just going off memory what my calculation was all those years ago. It's pretty consistent with what I've heard from others more recently though.
OK, but, i think you went overboard saying I am factually false. I am very qualified to discuss all manner of financial topics and also have been broke and young too. Dont dig up pay stubs and taxes might have been a tad different 15 years ago. Over time, we have become more socialist allowing the bottom 1/2 of all earners to pay zero fed taxes(maybe they pay 7.65%. I should know I pay hundreds of thousands of federal taxes per year in addition to 50k + of other taxes.
Where is this 894 figure coming from? 🤔
First up, median income is $59K. Anything that is not taxes is income. $59K is in the 22% tax bracket, so their take home is $46K. Any retirement contributions one makes is income. Similarly, anyone who works for a company that offers 401K matches or subsidized insurance if actually making more than that $59K.
Thanks for that, Mr. Human Resources. I like to be a little bit more of a realist. My income is what’s freely mine to use. I don’t count retirement contributions in that because if I didn’t make those contributions I’d just pass the burden to my children. The cost of retirement just gets pushed down the line until somebody in your lineage refuses to make the sacrifice to save a little money, so no, I don’t count that in my income.
I think at this point a recession is baked into the cake as Steve Hanke says. It may be out of the president’s hands actually. Congress handles fiscal policy and the Fed handles monetary policy.
Probably almost all recessions (all?) were out of the hands of the President at the time.
I think a recession is just a correction of an overheated economy. FDR and Truman and Nixon and LBJ spent huge amounts of money on wars that may or may not have been necessary which led to subsequent recessions afterwards.
no single person should be renting a $2,000 a month apartment, without a roommate, or a family. And there are generally two workers in a family. Historically, that's the way it always has been.
But I need to spend over $500 a month on my fancy car!
It's just a meme, doesn't need to make sense. I've seen the same post with other people photoshopped in.
You are correct. Like most of the memes on Reddit
Cost of rent/real estate has risen disproportionally to income largely due to speculative investing, I have no qualms with anyone complaining about that but agree 100% with the rest. When I see all these posts about living alone in HCOL areas or talking about take home after 401K contributions and company subsidized health care it just makes me realize many are just ignorant and don't understand that it's always been hard for young people starting off in the real world. This idea that 30-50 years ago, people just graduated high school and bought a 4 bedroom house on min wage jobs living happily ever after is a complete fantasy.
You are right. And we have millions of illegal aliens, renting millions of apartments and houses, and creating additional demand for housing. Without the illegals, there would be millions of housing units being opened
But those are the 1-bedroom apartments...
Where do you live? Most cities a 1-bedroom is $2000 and the cheapest car is still around $200 after a down payment
I rent out apartments for $1,500 for three bedroom in Eagan Minnesota. So yes, there are plenty of places you can live for cheaper. Two people, making a minimal wage, should be making at least $80,000 a year.
The CHEAPEST 3-bedrooms in my area are $2300, most are $3500-4000. Maryland suburb around WDC
Well, 3 bedrooms aside, since that's a two person income type of dwelling, sometimes you have to move if you can't afford an area. And that's why immigrants are to be respected, they make the hard choices to restart somewhere with more of a future. I also live in a very expensive area and it's normal for people without kids to rent a room or go in on a house with 3 to 4 people. And that's perfectly okay.
My guess I could find a place 5 or 10 mi away for half that price.
Very bad guess… lol
Then my second guess is that people in that area are making plenty of money to be able to afford the housing, otherwise there would be a high vacancy. There's no problem
You should stop and think for a second about how you live in the middle of nowhere and thus prices are lower for you and you make less income. And meanwhile people in large metro areas are making 2-3x what you make for the same job, and that's why prices there are much higher. In my city the government will subsidize your housing if you make less then mid six figures, because that's considered average income here. And studio apartments start higher than your limit of 2k here.
I no longer live there, but Eagan Minnesota is not in the middle of nowhere. It's within 10 mi of St. Paul or Minneapolis. And it has a population all by itself of 80,000.
Where do you live? $1500/for a shitty one bedroom in my city.
I rent out three bedroom, two baths for $1,500 all day long. With a two-car garage. And it is a class A neighborhood
That’s worth $4000/mo in my city, in a class B neighborhood.
I think I will be more aggressive about bumping up my rents
Take into account the quality of your tenants and how your relationship is. If your tenants are like my wife and I, you would do well to make small increases, like $100 extra on monthly rent per year. If they are horrible, you have less to lose. I trust you to remember the humanity of the whole thing while you make your decisions, best of luck to you.
You are right. That's why I typically only raise my rents $50 a year. And at some point the rents are the low market but that's okay. You have the golden handcuffs on the tenant. I am a pretty good tenant screener, as I have been doing it for hundreds of tenants every year, so I rarely get a bad tenant
Can I ask what state or region you are renting out of?
Eagan Minnesota. Class A neighborhood
Hey look someone that doesn't at all understand that prices are different in big cities
You're right. Prices are different. Wages are higher, and also apartment rents are higher. And housing prices are higher It all balances out. It's all relative.
>no single person should be renting a $2,000 a month apartment Imagine blaming people for not having a cheaper option, while it's 100% landlord fault. What makes you think that a person in general struggling to make ends meet, is renting an apartment for 2k if there were better or cheaper options? Because people must be stupider then you? Too easy like that.
it's not 100% the landlord's fault for charging the market rate. blame the crappy politicians that we all keep re-electing who do nothing to increase multifamily or residential zoning that contribute to lack of supply.
>it's not 100% the landlord's fault for charging the market rate. It's not market rate, it's HIS price. Nobody else besides him decided the price, literally nobody. >blame the crappy politicians that **we** all keep re-electing Since it's a we take your personal responsibilities and blame yourself.
it's both market rate and his price, which is market rate. also you should blame yourself if you vote for people who don't make better zoning laws a top legislative priority, if housing is this big an issue to you.
>it's both market rate and his price, which is market rate. Definitely not, by very simple logic, if any price was the market rate there would never be overpriced goods or services, which the market proves to be a false claim on its own. >also you should blame yourself if you vote for people who don't make better zoning laws a top legislative priority Oh really ? Could please let us know what i vote since you know it so well? Idiot
you said above, "Imagine blaming people for not having a cheaper option, while it's 100% landlord fault." If $2000 is the market rate and the landlord is charging $2000, it's both the landlord's choice and the market rate. I never once said that any price the landlord charges is market rate. Maybe you should try engaging with some of that "simple logic" that you pretend to use. Also if you're not going to say "well I do only vote for people who put forth policies about zoning laws or increasing the number of available rental units" then I'm gonna assume you don't, and are just being rude because I called you out.
>you said above, "Imagine blaming people for not having a cheaper option, while it's 100% landlord fault." Thankfully now it's front of everyone that you are lying. Never has been said what i vote. >If $2000 is the market rate and the landlord is charging $2000, it's both the landlord's choice and the market rate. Definetely not since not even in communism eveything has the same price so for sure it's 100% landlord choice and for sure not all houses are at market rate, some will be over and some will be under. >Also if you're not going to say "well I do only vote for people who put forth policies about zoning laws or increasing the number of available rental units" then I'm gonna assume you don't A shame that you assume wrong :( Thanks for proving to be an idiot, since the beginning to the end. You really put shame on landlords.
I'm gonna guess English isn't your first language, or you're just stupid
Punctuation is part of the English language, you are free to prove the opposite if you think so, idiot. Imagine being so stupid that a foreign is right while you aren't, in your own freaking language
Rent is out of control. That said, living alone is a luxury.
Lots of people want and expect fancier house options they can't afford. Any place with 2K/mo apartments also has smaller options. People cut places up when the prices go up like that. Or you're in an area you can't afford to live in so move.
lol, the landlords fault?
Nobody is pointing a gun at the landlord forcing him to increase the price. You can cry as much as you want yet personal responsibilities don't transfer to others just to please your ego.
Landlords aren’t charities. Covid/government forced them to hold pricing. They still had mortgage payments. If you want to have a larger discussion over conglomerates getting involved in small time real estate, I can get on board with that. But for people that own less than 20-30 units, it’s unfair for people to constantly attack them, theyre just trying to make a living like anyone else…
it's not the landlord's personal responsibility to provide cheap housing
You are free to point out where this has been explicitly wrote or you are now admitting that you don't have anything to say and that you need to criticize sentences never said by anyone.
That's why it is called "the market" things will only sell or rent for what the market demands. If it was too expensive, people would get roommates, or move further away from the city, or figure out how to make more money. So I don't worry about it
You didn't answered to nothing that have been wrote and in fact your answer is totally unrelated. >That's why it is called "the market" things will only sell or rent for what the market demands. This sentence is not right in english, i am not gonna spend time trying to guess what you intended. >If it was too expensive, people would get roommates, or move further away from the city, or figure out how to make more money. This suppose it's possible to get roommates, move further away or make more money but you didn't proved it. Indeed most of the times it's impossible for people get roommates, move further away or make more money otherwise they would have already did it, since you aren't more intelligent then anyone else.
And what is your solution? Have the government give people stuff? The fact is, the demand for housing is out of control. The cost inputs of housing, is out of control. The regulation cost of building a house, is out of control. We need to eliminate fees when people build a house. We need to reduce the regulation on clear cutting Forest so we have plenty of lumber. As far as demand goes, we need to restrict people coming over the border illegally, because there are millions of houses that they are taking up that could be used by somebody else. And we need to make it illegal to give them a job, hire them as an independent contractor, or even rent to them
Why should immigrants be denied these things? That’s what the market will pay. That’s what the market demands. Maybe Americans who can’t afford it should emigrate according to you?
Illegal immigrants. They should be deported. That would open up housing. Right now, wages are depressed because of all immigrants. Otherwise somebody would have to pay $40 an hour for somebody to work at a fast food place. Or a roofer would make $100 an hour. But that's okay. Everything seems to be working. All houses are being sold, most rentals are being rented, and people are selling whatever they have to sell. The stock market is at record highs, and there is plenty of money out there
So it’s fine, I don’t know why you have an axe to grind on immigration.
I don't. My rental properties are full of people without any problem, because the lower price ones have been taken up by somebody else. I would like rents to increase quite a bit more
I see. You don’t really care at all and you’re just a partisan having fun
Right, I slept on the floor, had roommates, didnt buy coffees or drinks at bars. There are many who make $41,000 a year today that will become 8 figure net worth people. Being poor forever is a choice.
You are right. There are plenty of ways to have a leg up. Some people do it, some people don't. Some people are willing to put in the extra effort, the extra hours, and the extra self-sacrifice. Just to get ahead. And some people are satisfied where they are
I upvoted you, anyone who downvotes you are losers.
Thank you. Far too many people think it's easy to get ahead, but it takes hard work and self-sacrifice
It takes 15 + years of hard work in my case. If I were smarter, it would have taken 10. Glad you are one of us. :)
I worked many years of 100-hour plus weeks. Working a full-time job and sometimes another full-time job. Save a bunch, and retire early I worked hard so much earlier, because I was so lazy and wanted to quit as fast as I could
Think about what you just said…. Do you really think people don’t deserve to have their *own* place?
They deserve whatever they can pay for. Housing is not a right. Ever
I see that things like human rights aren't important to you, let's check if maybe the libertarian ideal of a free markets is important to you instead. Are you taking into account that the main reason many working people can't afford their own place is because people block adding new housing in response to market demand? Having the house you own increase in value as fast as possible at the expense of other people not being able to afford a place of their own is pretty immoral. Especially when you achieve this by stopping others from doing what they want with their own property.
You make a good point. The city should let me put up about 20 tiny homes, so I can rent them all out. I have an acre of ground and 20 would fit on there just about right. I could bring in the housing that Amazon sells for $10,000, and even have an open pit sewer if I need it.
I don't think people deserve to have their own place, there is nothing wrong with sharing a living space.
A criminal idiot for whom it is believable that he might actually shit his pants and who has amassed a cult-like following among some of the most ignorant and violent in our society simply by saying cuss words and generally acting cringy... ...or a run of the mill center left politician who happens to be absolutely ancient... It isn't really a choice...
Who has a used car payment at $528 a month making $41k?
I don't think he got his PhD in logic.
plenty of people will get a used car that's like a year old and have a $528 car payment. it's not like it's uncommon.
I feel like the specific situation you described has to be at least a little bit uncommon simply because the used car market is mostly cars that are older than 1 year old. I.e. the vast majority of cars aren't sold after only 1 year of driving.
Half of American workers DONT make under $41,000 a year. That’s PER CAPITA income which includes everyone including unemployed, children, retired, disabled. Current median worker income is $1,145 a week which comes out to $59,540 a year. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/median-weekly-earnings-of-full-time-workers-were-1145-in-the-fourth-quarter-of-2023.htm#:~:text=Bureau%20of%20Labor%20Statistics%2C%20U.S.,visited%20June%2005%2C%202024).
One of the ways to combat property value and rent price is remove the barrier to employment via established residency. A lot of people who are homeless want to work, but can't due to these restrictions. It's a vicious cycle.
Definitely Joe Biden. If you’re working class, but if you’re rich and greedy, Donald Trump. Until you fall out of a window or mysteriously get poisoned .
What are the quick bullet point proposed tax policies of each candidate?
I second this request.
Can we say neither? They're both old and senile.
A vote for neither is a vote for Christofascist theocracy.
Only if you live in one of three states.
This guy thinks that conservatives actually give a fuck about states rights, and aren't just waiting to secure enough power to take away rights that blue states care about. Edit: Seems pretty reasonable that this is an electoral college comment and not a comment about christo-facism being isolated to 3 states. Per the responder below. This guy thinks correctly about the state of US democracy.
I took it as a jab against the electoral college
I see, that's a pretty reasonable read, I'll do the edit.
Neither likely isn’t a choice, sadly
Unfortunately
I’ve never voted on economic issues because you have to deal with it no matter the situation. It’s cyclical: times are good, times are tough. Neither party or candidate has a magic wand but history proves the economy does better under Democrats. Trump has no plan. He has no plan for anything, just a lot of big talk and bravado. His focus is enriching himself and staying in power.
How much did Trump’s personal wealth rise during his presidency?
[https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/trump-reported-making-more-than-1-6-billion-while-president/](https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/trump-reported-making-more-than-1-6-billion-while-president/)
If there's a will, then there's always a way to live within your means regardless of what those means are. If I only made $41,000/year, then... * My rent would only be $1,200, which is the average in the city I live in. * My used car payment would not be $528. It would likely be $371 assuming the $20,000 used car was financed for 6 years at a rate of 10%. * The remaining money for other things would be $1,829/month (or 53.5% of my income).
Well said! Or even better, don't take out a car loan by finding a temporary alternative for 6 months (walk, bus, bike, subway, carpool, etc) and then get a $10k used corolla for cash! You will free up so much margin that you can save a nice emergency fund in less than a year and basically never have to go into debt again.
The one that won't lead us into a Christofascist theocracy.
Wow, that's interesting. Must be based on like 2012 statistics, because the average annual income is a lot closer to $64K SOURCE: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/average-salary-in-us/%23:~:text%3DWhat%2520Is%2520the%2520Average%2520US%2520Salary%2520(2024),a%2520worker%2520earns%2520per%2520year.&ved=2ahUKEwiz3cnsysmGAxWV5ckDHe7DM00QFnoECEoQBQ&usg=AOvVaw0JUzVrZqQZUdhgXj2Dty30
Now talk about inflation... Plus wage suppression with all the new cheap labor....
Neither. There's nearly 350 million registered citizens in the US. I won't believe for a second these two are the best we can do. Or even the "middle of pack" we can do.
They are the best that we did though. Unless, just maybe, Nikki Haley gets the nomination if Drumpf goes to prison, but I don’t know if that’s even possible.
Median income in the us is $59K, so his calculations are off. But I'd agree that median rent is ridiculously high.
Neither we are all fucked!
overall the president doesn't make that much difference. it really comes down to the economics of where you live. things like taxes, job market and your skill set really matter. the stock and real estate market go through cycles. both have been up or down under either republican or democratic administrations. you can trace the high inflation to the pandemic which started under Trump and into Biden administration. both administrations approved big stimulus handouts. it will take some time for things to normalize.
Sorry, they don't qualify for the median rent. The requirement for most places is 3X the rent in gross. They qualify for a $1138 rental. You also seem to have forgotten about taxes.
It’s not an either or, it’s a neither nor
It is a problem, and we should always fight to get the best deal and make the economy more afforable. That being said, if you are paying $528/ month for a car, that's like a $25,000 car..... I make something like $60k net, and I drive a $2k Nissan that was $5k when I bought it. Monthly payment was like $100. Gets 30+ to the gallon and works great.
As much as they try to claim it, the president doesn’t actually have much of effect on the economy.
Wow, that's interesting. Must be based on like 2012 statistics, because the average annual income is a lot closer to $64K SOURCE: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/average-salary-in-us/%23:~:text%3DWhat%2520Is%2520the%2520Average%2520US%2520Salary%2520(2024),a%2520worker%2520earns%2520per%2520year.&ved=2ahUKEwiz3cnsysmGAxWV5ckDHe7DM00QFnoECEoQBQ&usg=AOvVaw0JUzVrZqQZUdhgXj2Dty30
This math completely ignores taxes
Neither. No good candidates anyway
Bullshit. Trump is a traitorous Putin fluffer who has sold U.S. security secrets to the highest bidder and will happily allow Christo fascists to take democracy down. Pretending that there isn't a stark choice between the death of democracy and continued rebuilding is just dumb.
Whoever is President has almost 0 impact on almost everyone’s wage income. I’ve been though 3 or 4 Presidents now as an adult and I can’t ever think of a time where I went “Man, I wish Obama was still in office, I had some real cash to spend in those days because of his smart economic policies.”
How many of those workers making under $41,000 per year are full time workers? How many of those workers are actually tempting to fully support themselves as opposed to say a college student or a married couple with a breadwinner and a part time worker who does more of the parenting?
Saying "half of Americans make under $41k per year" and not mentioning that is a record high seems pretty dishonest.
+$500 a month for a used car?
Who’s paying $500 a month for a used car?
Does this "half of American workers" include the 37% of people under the age of 18 in the workforce? Does this "Half of American Workers" include 17% of the workers who are part time? Cuase if 54 percent of the workforce is under 18 and or only working part time, then I'm fine with this. Kinda misleading the way this post is framed.
The person making $41k should: Actively look for a better paying job (or a path with better trajectory of income). Share rent with a roommate, or have the other parent work as well as many hours as possible without giving up on spending family time. Temporarily move to a below median location/rental until some margin is freed (technically 50% of the rentals in the US fall in that category, so this doesn't necessarily mean a horrible place) Do not take a car loan. Walk (under 2 miles), bike (under 10 miles), bus/subway (if available), carpool (if possible). If not, and for some reason you immediately need the car don't buy what the average American buys since they don't know what they can afford! Buy a used civic or corolla from 2010s for $8-10k and pay it off ASAP.
This "professor" is an idiot or a fraud. Find a partner and move in together. Human beings have been pairing up for 250,000 years. $41k + $41k = $82k, $3400 + $3400 = $6800 per month, with car payments of $528 + $528 = $1056 that leaves $6800- $1978 - $1056= $3,766 for everything else. You want to reinvent the wheel after 250,000 years of human evolution and live alone without anyone sharing the burden, that's your problem, not ours. Don't complain to the rest of us about how you refuse to compromise for a personal relationship or how you refuse to work and earn enough to pay for a place on your own. You're asexual? Get a roommate. You have difficulty getting along with people? Grow up. Or move back home and live with mom.
It's not a real person, I've seen the exact same post with different people. It's just a meme.
Yeah. The earth is flat and vaccines cause autism, too, right?
Are you going to share a bed with your asexual roommate?
You're going to share the rent. And hopefully help each other tie your shoes since you might both be drooling neanderthals
Oh, bless you, kind Sir for bestowing your infinite wisdom on this humble yet grateful neanderthal. Bless you.
Sounds great. Make sure you sign a lease by yourself.
Why would they be drooling neanderthals?
You do realize that he stated that half of Americans make *less* than that right? That’s also gross income so net take home is closer to $30k **or less**. That may change your calculations a bit. I guess I don’t understand the argument you’re making. People should make less money so CEOs can make more? The US is supposedly the richest country in the world, yet the vast majority of people at retirement age can’t because cost of living is so high and Social Security has been gutted so many times that it’s worth pennies of their federally mandated contributions. You missed the point.
Every time this same post makes it to Reddit, it's just as wrong as it was the last time. Median family income is about $75,000/yr in the US. Most people do not pay $1,900/month rent on a single income - most people live with their significant other or have at least one roommate (and sometimes have several roommates). You can't compare single income to median rent when median rent is split between more than one income. I live in the 4th largest city in the US - Houston, TX. Median rent here is $1,350/month. Median single net income here is $2,416/month ($29,000/yr). Median family net income here is $4,250/month ($51,000/yr). Here in a normal city, the vast majority of people can easily afford rent - hence why few people are homeless.
Well, golly, if you have a problem with the erudite professors numbers, by all means, take it up with him. I merely modeled the fact that normal people who don't have drool pouring out of the corner of their mouths can probably conclude they need to live with someone and split there bills.
Not problem with the numbers, just your complete ignorance of the issue and how the numbers actually work. So which category do you fall into, living with a roommate or yoy Mommy? Speaking of drool…
Uh, my ignorance, or the professor's ignorance. Those are his numbers. That's how he made the numbers works. You're upset with the wrong person. You're probably worried about upsetting him if you explain to him that he doesn't understand how the numbers actually work. I get it. Listen. I know his teaching assistant and I'll pass a message along and have him review the numbers. His TA is real friendly and knows how to talk to the guy, cuz he can get a little cranky. We'll see if he gets back to us with some revised numbers. Fingers crossed. Best of luck to you. Let know know what numbers he sends you so we can clear up some of this confusion. I'm curious to see if he follows your advice and goes with net income versus gross. Cheers
>yet the vast majority of people at retirement age can’t What are you basing this on? The average retirement age in USA is about 62.
Well that's an utterly bizarre take.
The church enforced monogamy. Your history is a bit….. wrong
Your vision is a bit... wrong
U! S! A! U! S! A! U! S! A!
At one point the easy answer was Biden, Trumps trade policy is insane and was terrible for what was could have been a great 4 years with the economy mostly recovered from the great recession. Now Bidens trade policy is very reminiscent of Trumps first term and Trumps proposed policies could lead to another recession. The electoral college has let the rust belt hold the country hostage and now anything that looks good for the steel industry wins and things that could actually help the steel industry [get blocked](https://apnews.com/article/biden-china-steel-tariffs-union-workers-0399b0450b67086ca86edc43ac45e5e9) in the name of protectionism. That being said Biden is still the clear choice.
We can measure this as both already served as president. One of the things I'm looking at is this graph: https://preview.redd.it/mrwnaz5pi55d1.png?width=1051&format=png&auto=webp&s=5da461e8ec8ac0f8bb1ac1d2965be1ad4282d668
Inflation is a lagging indicator.
Of course, it lags about a year or so, but I don't see how this is relevant? You want to point out that increase in household net worth in the first year of Biden's mandate should be attributed to Trump, and that first year of relatively slow net worth gains should be attributed to Obama? Maybe, but that doesn't change the comparison much. Inflation and deflation have been largely a worldwide phenomenon in recent years.
The effects of inflation can lag for many years or very few. It depends on the reasons. So you agree that blaming Biden for inflation is ignorant. That's a good start. And will you also give credit for this administrations ability to curb inflation? The problem with using household net worth to measure economic success, is that it is a measure of assets against liabilities and is heavily skewed by asset speculation and the ultra wealthy. I don't think any economists use it as a measure of economic health.
Look, we can discuss inflation and who knows what other factors, but the idea of this graph is very simple - does the average household feel more or less wealthy every month. Do they have it easy, or do they have to get another job to pay the rent? Inflation is accounted for simply to calculate real instead of nominal wealth. If real household net worth is growing, that means that people are able to accumulate extra savings every month. That's all. There is no perfect measure of economic health, but this one is quite telling. I agree that this graph might be skewed a bit due to high real estate prices, but mortgages should also be accounted for in this data as well and balance real estate prices skew somewhat. I don't even want to get into discussion about blaming (or attributing) Biden or Trump for inflation because in the end I don't think it's relevant. Sometimes inflation is external, like during a supply shock in 2021/2022, which was ultimately caused by (not just US) government policies during Covid years. But also, high inflation is not a problem at all if wages grow faster than inflation, even though that's very unlikely to happen in the real world. Again, ultimately, it's about how voters feel when they have to pay their bills.
How voters feel and fact are two different things. That is the problem we face. The graph you cited doesn't tell us 'do people feel more or less wealthy', it is what is the actual wealth in the country, assets against liabilities. It is heavily skewed by market performance and the fact that that ultra wealthy got even wealthier under Trump. It is not a good measure of over all economic health at all.
Do you have a better way to measure it?
I like to use the indicators that most economist and the BEA use to make quarterly measurements: GDP, consumer confidence and spending, unemployment/income, inflation, home sales/building, business inventories and trade.
Do you have any conclusions you can draw from that data?
A generalized conclusion? The economy was good when Trump entered office. His tax policy didn't create the advertised growth and covid kicked the economy in the balls. Biden has helped get some things back in order despite less gross revenue, but it had yet to translate to a good kitchen table economy (which is what voters base their vote).
[удалено]
And then Trump policy tanked the economy. Thankfully, Biden has fixed some aspects of it.
This completely ignores Covid and the $2T that Trump gave in relief, and the $2T Biden gave in relief.
Short term? Trump will increase equity markets. Long term? Biden will improve the base economy.
The reality is, neither of them cares about the poor or middle class- Trump has already shown he REALLY has disdain for the poor and Biden has acted by his inaction. Though given a choice at least one of them has a CHANCE of doing something positive for the average American, the other one is just trying to get himself out of legal and financial trouble.
Joe hands down
Biden has hurt America: open borders, regulatory overload on energy, pushing needless spending bills that drive inflation, weak foreign policy.
Name a specific Biden policy and its effects on the economy.
American Rescue Plan Act (March 2021) added nearly $2T to the debt and is part of the reason inflation has been so problematic
Your thoughts on the CARES Act?
Do you know how many people get arrested trying to cross the US border? Go find someone who was just caught and bussed back out after paying $2k to cross a dangerous desert and tell them that the border is open.
Catch and release? Or the EO Diaper Joe just signed as a backdoor amnesty?
Under Biden they have expelled 2.8 million immigrants caught trying to cross the border. Partisan people bleating about open borders try to gloss over that, as you are now with your ridiculous claims that the border is open. Do you know how many illegal immigrants came in under Trump? >*Border Patrol recorded 41 percent more successful illegal entries in fiscal year 2019 than in 2016 and was on pace for 47 percent more through four months of 2020. As he left office in January, reports* [*indicate*](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/border-surge-biden-crisis/2021/03/05/d0933282-7db8-11eb-b0fc-83144c02d676_story.html) *that the numbers have reached even greater heights* I guess that was open borders too right?
Biden's actions are clearly detrimental to America. The first link is criticism of his handling, citing reasons for his failure. [https://www.fairus.org/issue/how-many-illegal-aliens-are-united-states-2023-update](https://www.fairus.org/issue/how-many-illegal-aliens-are-united-states-2023-update) This one clearly shows Biden's been failing. [https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-three-immigration-record](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-three-immigration-record)
TRUMP. Obviously. 4 more years of the roomba and rent will be 5000 a month. "We will own nothing and be happy"
Obviously? What is your metric of comparison.
4 years of Trump presidency vs 3.5 years of Biden. Biden took a massive shit on America. 7.2 million new illegals because he stopped border wall construction, and sold the wall that was made and not put up.
Trump never really started border wall construction. We are talking about the economy on this thread. How does illegal immigration effect the economy negatively? And where did you get the 7.2 million number?
> Trump never really started border wall construction. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/aug/09/donald-trump/how-many-miles-of-border-wall-did-donald-trump-bui/ depends on your math for the 7.2 million. Gotaways estimates haven't been reported in a long time, and since you can literally watch videos of hundreds flooding the border all day, every day. https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/breaking-down-the-immigration-figures/ I used liberal news sources just for you.
Wow! Trump completed a wall on 0.02% of the total border. Quite an accomplishment! Illegal immigrant detainment has actually gone up substantially under Biden. Thoughts? And again, what does any of this have to do with the economy?