Reminds me of something I read in a very interesting book-- you (and maybe others) really should read False Economy. You'll be full of little facts to throw upon people then! (srsly)Quote:
Originally Posted by ar81
Printable View
Reminds me of something I read in a very interesting book-- you (and maybe others) really should read False Economy. You'll be full of little facts to throw upon people then! (srsly)Quote:
Originally Posted by ar81
I can just imagine the poor folk who rent and are wondering when they get their goodies...Quote:
Now it looks like the government is going to start making partial mortgage payments for the unemployed. Seems like a waste of money if there aren't jobs created between now and the time the money runs out.
The article isn't really saying they won't have to pay, it just says they can defer the payments. For how long isn't clear. The writing down of loans is a different matter, which will cost a lot of money and you really have to wonder if that is right. I would like to know who gets the gains if the prices of those houses go up again in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The administration's newest push also seeks to more aggressively help borrowers who owe more on their mortgages than their properties are worth, by encouraging lenders to cut the loan balances of millions of these distressed homeowners and possibly refinance into loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration. The problem of so-called "underwater" borrowers has bedeviled earlier administration efforts to address the mortgage crisis as home prices plunged.
Second, government will double the amount it pays to lenders that help modify second mortgages, such as piggyback mortgages, which enabled home buyers to put little or no money down, home equity lines of credits. These second mortgages are an added burden on struggling homeowners, especially when their total debt, as a result, is greater than their home value.
This sounds like a mess. Didn't Citi and BoA already agree to cut deals with some homeowners, without being paid with our tax dollars as incentive? :confused:
Still makes no sense to focus on "underwater" homes, unless they were already planning to sell but won't sell short and instead walk away. Just because homes have lost on appraised value doesn't mean everyone should sell and move.
These walkaway jingle-key people need to know they'll have to pay taxes on their mortgage amount as income, even if they give the house back to the bank. I think the same applies to reduced principle loans--they'll have to pay a capital gains tax on the difference, won't they? And all of this will hit their credit scores in a big way.
Doubt they will have to pay a capital gains tax, GGT...
Why not? If they had a home equity loan, and bought something with it, they either have to pay the money back (with interest) or declare it as income. Just because the principle is reduced doesn't mean they didn't get a check, cash it, and spend it. :confused:
Ok, fine. But no one can be forced to pay a capital GAINS tax unless they sell the house at a price higher than they bought it for. I'm pretty sure of that..
Cash money from a home equity loan is income unless or until the loan is paid off, whatever its tax category. If they walk away from the house, the first lien holder gets the property. But what about the 2nd lien holder, who coughed up the cash?
The walkaways might also be liable for property taxes in arears, unless the bank started to pay them as the title holder, but that's kind of unlikely. Title and deed transfers have to go thru the court system and be legally recorded, even a Deed in Lieu transfer....
Unless they filed for bankruptcy, I think walkaways will be surprised by taxes they'll owe, or fines at least.
The IRS counts forgiven debt as income. I believe though that was temporarily done away with as part of the stimulus garbage. Could be wrong I didn't pat attention to every detail of that monster.
I meant for those who actually kept their homes... for walkaways, that is a very cloudy thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I didn't think IRS was giving breaks in any of this mess. Aren't they also taxing the Cash for Clunker scheme? They're not suspending income tax on Unemployment benefits either.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
I did a little digging and here is what I found on the IRS page.
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/artic...179414,00.html
Quote:
The Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007 generally allows taxpayers to exclude income from the discharge of debt on their principal residence. Debt reduced through mortgage restructuring, as well as mortgage debt forgiven in connection with a foreclosure, qualifies for the relief.
Interesting. Especially the date. Maybe the IRS did this to offset the bankruptcy rule changes. I'm not too crazy about this Act, but neither do I want to see entire neighborhoods emptied out, taking everyone with them. I can only hope the flippers and speculators who did this with non-principal residences will have to pay some tax on their debt = income scheme. What a mess :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
^^ It's pretty hard to get a mortgage modification. One of the questions you're immediately asked on the government website questionnaire is whether your house is a primary residence.
The mortgage modifications rules are crazy, and the paper work is insane. One of the rules is that you have to be up to date on your payments, which to me, seems like it defeats the purpose of the whole idea.
My mom is trying to work through the paperwork of information and rules, seeing if she is going to lose our house since my dad's passing, or if there is a way to save it.
New jobs numbers are out. Gained 160,000 jobs in March, but the unemployment rate is still hovering around 10%. How many of these "new jobs" are temporary Census jobs? Maybe the hemorrhaging has ebbed due to the stimulus or other government intervention, but we're still not making the hundreds of thousands NEW sustainable jobs needed to keep afloat. Let alone get ahead.
Around 40-50k for the census. Month by month job numbers really don't mean too much though.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
On the plus side workers are more productive then ever. A little bit of concern can motivate people and motivate business to focus on the bottom line. This is good as it leads to better business practices, better services/goods and just all around higher standard of living. When efficiency is as good as its going to get based on current technology, it becomes cheaper to hire more people then to give extra hours and business confidence gets a bit higher we will see sustained job growth.
For every boom there is a bust. For every recession there is a boom. Government needs to get out of the way and let it happen naturally or it will skew things and damage human potential and optimization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
THAN, you dickwad, when will you learn?
Many more than just 50,000 for the census. Productivity is good for the employer, not those looking for JOBS. I can cut hundreds of workers and use robots or computer programs, and only have to hire one guy to keep the robots or computers working.
For every boom is a bust, for every recession is a boom, this is sounding like proverbs, or things naive young folks say at the altar. Hope and optimism is one thing. But you also didn't think this Great Recession was anything beyond a normal business cycle, so everything you have to say from there is pure BUNK.
If anything is skewed, it's your perception. If government had stepped out of the way in '07-'08, the "natural" progression would have meant your ATM wouldn't give dollars, your checks would have bounced, commerce would have stood still. And who knows what your wife's care would have looked like. Let alone your son's birth.
But, GGT, the government increased the boom and thus the bust was made worse. Wait, I didn't say that. Pretend Lewk said it, because I'm not game for another round just yet. :|
Anyway, 160K is not really a rebound. Take out census jobs and, if you believe the media reports, it's enough to keep the unemployment rate in line with the rate of population growth. And, let's not forget that it is really 20% unemployment. The official rate won't go down until people, who are encouraged by good employment data, stop entering the labor force (forcing the unemployment numbers back up!) That means we still have 11% to go before the official rate even starts budging!
Hi aggie, I'm not ready for another round either. If it's recovery, then it's a jobless one. You're the first to say it's 20% unemployment "rate", the U-6 says it's around 16%.
The only point in pointing blame is to make new regulations. I said a long time ago this wasn't any normal recession, that I thought it was another Depression, but no one likes to hear that. Nobody enjoys a killjoy :(
It is good for society. New jobs will be created. When we moved away from a primarily agrarian society it created huge boosts in quality of life and technology. Job destruction is awesome for society as whole and bad for the specific worker involved. But you don't outlaw robots just to save factory workers that would be crazy.Quote:
Productivity is good for the employer, not those looking for JOBS. I can cut hundreds of workers and use robots or computer programs, and only have to hire one guy to keep the robots or computers working.
While past results are no guarantee for the future it has held up as true for hundreds of years.Quote:
For every boom is a bust, for every recession is a boom, this is sounding like proverbs, or things naive young folks say at the altar.
The "Great Recession" was just a combination of several factors. It was a natural bust in the business cycle combined with the gigantic bubble in the housing market. I actually did not realize how bad the bubble was and so misread how bad this recession would be. Looking in hindsight and how lax underwriting was for mortgages we really should have seen it coming.Quote:
But you also didn't think this Great Recession was anything beyond a normal business cycle, so everything you have to say from there is pure BUNK.
Keep in mind that the government had a big hand in the housing bubble. Existing tax code encourages mortgages due to interest deductions, FHA loans, Fannie/Freddie, Community Reinvestment act ect ect. It is not wholly responsible for the recession (since the natural business cycle would occur regardless) but it did make things a whole hell of a lot worse.
Nonsense. You bought the media/government hype.Quote:
If anything is skewed, it's your perception. If government had stepped out of the way in '07-'08, the "natural" progression would have meant your ATM wouldn't give dollars, your checks would have bounced, commerce would have stood still. And who knows what your wife's care would have looked like. Let alone your son's birth.
I have a hypothetical that I'm interested in how you'd respond to. Eventually (and possibly within our lifetimes) a robot will be capable and for less money doing every job that only requires logical or manual labor skills. Even designing and building more robots. This would likely leave people with the option of filling creative positions or working for less than the robots do. Since there aren't hundreds of millions of creative positions out there, supply is going to far exceed demand, which is going to affect the ability to be employed in said positions and the ability of said workers to paid a reasonable rate. There will also be people unfit for filling these jobs (for instance very likely yourself). The other factor, working for less than robots, is unlikely to provide a living wage, as the cost of fielding a robot + maintenance is likely a lot less than employing a person to do the same job, less efficiently, and for only 8-10 hours a day (the robot can work nearly non-stop 24 hours a day, year round without tiring). How do you see your ideology fitting in with this new world? You seem to take the stance that people only become poor because they aren't willing to work hard to both find and do a job, so how would you deal with a world where no matter how hard you want to work or could work, it would never be enough to compete with those things who are going to be built to do the job you want, ie. robots?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Edit: A small part of the reason I became an artist is this. Once a robot is capable of making art like a person makes art we're pretty much fucked and obsolete.
Illusions. When we didn't need 80% of people farming new jobs came along. When we didn't need a big chunk of the population working in factories service industries and computers came along. Something else will come along, again this is all based on what has happened in the past historically.
What will the new jobs be like? Well hard to determine. I suspect there will always be the need for human interaction in the service industries. Possibly WAY in the future we will have robots life like and with personality but that is still Sci-Fi for now.
Maybe there will be a bigger need for robot repair men or robot programmers. Maybe new technology (like the computer did in the last 50 years) will open up new jobs that we haven't dreamed of having before.
But taking a look from your point of view are you suggesting we shouldn't have robots because they might replace too many workers?
But historically it has always been that the new jobs created still require human beings, because we didn't yet have machines that could do them. Eventually there will come a point where the new jobs being created are more suited towards being done by machines than by people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Well I certainly hope not. I quite like the soulless and emotionless self-serve checkout stations they're implementing. If I wanted human interaction, I'd go spend time with a person. Since I just want whatever good is being provided by the store I'm frequenting I'd rather the process be as streamlined as possible. Said machines don't take up time asking me how my day is, or get pissed off and perform less efficiently if I don't show an interest in theirs. It scans my order, tallies it up, tells me how much, I pay, and I go.Quote:
What will the new jobs be like? Well hard to determine. I suspect there will always be the need for human interaction in the service industries. Possibly WAY in the future we will have robots life like and with personality but that is still Sci-Fi for now.
Also you're overlooking how many people are actually required in the services industry. I don't think our entire work force can be reduced to services and creative endeavors yet continue growing population-wise.
We already have robots building robots, and robots that can program, so its only a matter of time before we have robots building, programming, and servicing robots.Quote:
Maybe there will be a bigger need for robot repair men or robot programmers.
Making laws against it? Not really. People employing some thought to the process and the consequences of employing a robot over a person? In the future when it will be a problem, it would be a good idea to do so.Quote:
But taking a look from your point of view are you suggesting we shouldn't have robots because they might replace too many workers?
I can't believe you're actually making a Luddite argument...every piece of technology has historically led to significant decreases in the amount of human workers needed to do the same tasks. The computer, for example, put most secretaries out of jobs. Cars made horse carriage riders obsolete. Most technological advances in factories led to drastic decreases in the amount of factory workers necessary to do the same jobs. And yet the unemployment rate hasn't increased along with technological change. In fact, the opposite is true. Increases in productivity lead to decreases in unemployment, as it creates more income with fewer people working, allowing those other people to get other jobs. The trend has been for the new jobs to require more education and pay higher than the old ones.
My hypothetical is what happens when the new jobs being created do not require human beings to fill them, are better suited to be done by machines, or is more profitable to have machines do them. This does not seem absurd as one of the goals of all the research going into robotics, AI, etc. is to build a machine capable of doing everything a person can do and more, with the long term goal being to get it to do these things better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You mean like cars?Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
I can't tell if you mean the movie Cars (which would be amusing), robots used in the production of cars, how cars have removed certain jobs, or the lacking imagination to envision robots doing nearly everything people do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't think you realize how many people lost their jobs due to the invention of cars...Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Its inconsequential to the situation as there were still jobs afterward that needed to be done by people, and it created new jobs that needed to be done by people. I'm talking about a scenario in which all potential jobs with logic or manual labor as their foundation are either more cost efficient or more profitable for a machine to be doing. The same goes for the creation of any new jobs as the result of these machines existing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't see how this is hard to fathom. Take all the jobs that resulted from the invention and implementation of your example, cars. Now instead of just having the choice of employing people to do those jobs, that there was a choice between people, or machines which could do the job better for cheaper. How would that scenario have turned out? If you really feel like going "Oh well then this would create job X" first ask yourself if job X involves either manual labor or logic, and if it does, assume that there will be a machine that can do it. Continue ad nauseum until you run out of jobs machines can do...
I think the spread of wealth that new technology causes is even more significant than the productivity gains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And what makes you think that there won't be other jobs to replace those?Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Illusions, just read your hypothetical on robots. Unless robots get voting rights, governments can just vote to create a redistribution of wealth system that will allow people to either subsist comfortably (why not?) or be smart enough to use their government-supplied wealth and turn it into a small business (with robots doing everything).
At the point where humans become obsolete in so many tasks is where society has evolved enough to provide a good baseline living for everyone... even if they aren't working at all. Of course, strict birth control measures will have to be implemented...
I'm not really sure how you aren't understanding this. There will be new jobs. However our advancing level of technology will allow us to either immediately or rapidly place machines in a position to fill those jobs. You seem to have some logic flaw where a job is something people do, and if it is being done by a machine it is no longer a job. Welding and painting cars is still a job. It needs to be done, and a company has a choice of how to fill the requirements of that job. It can hire people, or purchase machines. If it chooses to buy a machine, that machine is still doing a job. It just happens that a person has lost an opportunity to do so. Unless there is some unknown plateau in either our ability or a machines ability to make better machines, there will eventually be machines that can do everything we can at or above our own ability level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
What I am interested in is what excuse Lewk would use to explain human unemployment in the face of the declining job opportunities for the human species as a whole because it has replaced the need or desire for human workers with more efficient and more productive machines. Will he still continue with his tract that nearly all unemployment is due to laziness, or finally concede that there may not be enough jobs available for everyone, and that the skill set required to do these jobs may not fit everyone. Or what if the jobs that are available aren't able to pay a living wage due to the large amount of people seeking employment? Not everyone is fit to be a scientist, doctor, artist, or engineer...however its kind of hard to fallback on scrubbing toilets when we have a machine that will do it for pennies a day...or less! Its also hard to earn a living wage when there are millions of other people dying to do your job.
Because the question was posed to Lewkowski and envisions a future based solely on the ideals and judgments he makes. Have you ever seen him agree to any government based wealth distribution ideas? That the maximization of a corporation's wealth is something not to strive for? Advocate a good baseline living for everyone, even if they aren't working at all? Place limits on or even advocate birth control measures?Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
For the same reasons that assembling Big Macs has been considered a "manufacturing sector job" since sometime during Bush Jr.'s presidency. Honesty is, contrary to the opinion of Kindergarten teachers everywhere, not the best policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It's surprisingly difficult to get re-elected if you admit that unemployment is at 16%, while severely underemployed people with university degrees assembling hamburgers account for another 10% of people who actually do have any job at all. Frankly, that's what you get when you allow women to have opinions. They say they want honesty, and then blame you when you tell them the truth.
Sounds like a great idea to me - just think of how many millions of jobs the government created during the last world war, by paying millions of citizens to go gallivanting around Europe for a couple years. And it's not like the government's current "stimulus" package is in danger of creating any jobs anyway, so what's the problem here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Pffft. I bet even all your fancy "economics" cant find a single flaw in this plan. :p
Now that you've thrown the idea out there, fair warning - when someone reads your idea and actually does it, I'll be honor-bound to chop you into little pieces and mail the pieces to Topeka. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
And your belief is that we're not?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Oh, right. Momentary lapse of thought - forget about rule 19: Never underestimate the power of denial.
Yeah, good thing our government hasn't embarked on any other massively expensive, morally questionably exercises in stupidity. Like handing out hundreds of billions to failing businesses that overextended themselves on junk mortgages or can't produce cars worth buying, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
And it's not like there's anyone employed by making or designing robots and computers and software, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Phucking Luddite.
Time to start watching that participation rate again. We should be back to 60% in a year or so.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p...pationrate.asp
I'm wondering why Illusions stopped posting....:(
There's a link to his CV in his signature. :noob:
I wonder if CK ended up a Trumpist.
Still doesn't explain why he stopped posting....Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
He was smart, educated, and articulate, but he was just another racist and sexist troll. Maybe he's working for Breitbart or the Russian Glavset? :haha: :(Quote:
I wonder if CK ended up a Trumpist.
Or maybe he returned to Canada after realizing the American Dream is fiction...