2016 elections - because it's never too early

[MadImmortalMan]

What rules made housing expensive?  I thought you were supporting the argument that interest rates were artificially low in the other thread.  The fact that most jobs now require a degree isn't a rule.  It is what the job market now demands.  I agree that is it difficult to get ahead in the US.  Social mobility in your country is declining.  But I don't think it is because there are too many rules but rather too few.  Deregulation of the financial sector was disastrous, lack of public health care and the rules which govern it (not Obamacare but real single payor public health care) creates terrible inequity. Your income tax system needs better rules so that the wealthy actually pay tax.  There is a lot that could be done to help the despondent but I don't think the prevailing ideology of the US would ever permit it to occur.

Honestly, I don't disagree with any of this. When I said rules I more or less meant all of the hurdles that get between people and accomplishing their goals. Rules can be cultural rather than legal. The latter usually follow the former, actually.

The Japanese have what we North Americans would consider a rather draconian set of legal restrictions, but that happened because they already had a culture of conformism. They could have not made those laws, but the culture would still enforce itself.

Other things are just circumstance. Like Chinese people buying up all the houses on the west coast. Californians and British Columbians didn't cause that, but it's still the case that a shitty two bedroom shack in San Jose costs at least a million dollars.

[LaCroix]

There, as in among 35-54 year olds?

40-50s, yeah, but i haven't checked whether that's actually true.

[Admiral Yi]

40-50s, yeah, but i haven't checked whether that's actually true.

My impression is it's the generation below that that's not setting aside money.

[LaCroix]

My impression is it's the generation below that that's not setting aside money.

i think it's too early to tell, unless you mean strictly 30-39. is it common to start saving pre-30s? a lot of big events to happen in the 20s that make it difficult to really start saving. also, the internet has really helped spread solid budgeting/investing advice. whether it's true, the 40-50~ range lived in pretty "easy" economic times. relatively easy to get a job if you went to college, etc. plus, housing costs (in some areas) have just skyrocketed. overall, there seem to be more conditions for my generation that might result in a stronger drive/interest to save

[Admiral Yi]

is it common to start saving pre-30s?

I've read of people raiding their 401ks.

[MadImmortalMan]

is it common to start saving pre-30s?

Not anymore, and that's really a problem. Everyone knows the first dollar you save is the most valuable. Compounding and inflation, etc.

[LaCroix]

I've read of people raiding their 401ks.

yup, i've known someone who did that. but, none of my friends have really settled down yet. they're either in school or still partying. i don't know what the settle-downers are doing.

Not anymore, and that's really a problem. Everyone knows the first dollar you save is the most valuable. Compounding and inflation, etc.

20-30 years ago, did people start saving in their 20s?

[MadImmortalMan]

Well, 20 years ago was 1995.

People I knew then didn't have to pay 20k a quarter for tuition. It was more like $2500. (OSU goes on quarters, not semesters.) They worked at KFC or something and saved only a little, but something.

I worked at Rax and BK and payed my tuition out of that even though I got federal loans. I invested the loan money and paid it off before I started to have to pay interest, keeping the proceeds. That's how I bought my first car. My mom took the rest.

Studying was not considered a "job".

Now granted, the town I grew up in has since become populated by only people who are on ss or disability, heroin addicts, or government employees. But the fast food jobs are still there.

You can't pay your tuition from a minimum wage job anymore.

[Ed Anger]

Rax. Hadn't heard that name in awhile.

[Eddie Teach]

I liked those alligator-shaped cups they had.

[Jacob]

Other things are just circumstance. Like Chinese people buying up all the houses on the west coast. Californians and British Columbians didn't cause that, but it's still the case that a shitty two bedroom shack in San Jose costs at least a million dollars.

The real problem in BC is all the Ontarians and Albertans buying up the houses, but they're harder to identify so they get much less media coverage.

[DGuller]

Other things are just circumstance. Like Chinese people buying up all the houses on the west coast. Californians and British Columbians didn't cause that, but it's still the case that a shitty two bedroom shack in San Jose costs at least a million dollars.

The real problem in BC is all the Ontarians and Albertans buying up the houses, but they're harder to identify so they get much less media coverage.

Ugh.  Yeah, I imagine that's quite a nasty problem to have.

[jimmy olsen]

If the election is Trump vs Clinton,  looks like Webb could do pretty well. Pretty sure my Dad would vote for him.

PPP Iowa Poll: Clinton 41%, Trump 40%, Webb 9%

North Carolina poll: Trump 43%, Clinton 41%, Webb 8%[

[crazy canuck]

What rules made housing expensive?  I thought you were supporting the argument that interest rates were artificially low in the other thread.  The fact that most jobs now require a degree isn't a rule.  It is what the job market now demands.  I agree that is it difficult to get ahead in the US.  Social mobility in your country is declining.  But I don't think it is because there are too many rules but rather too few.  Deregulation of the financial sector was disastrous, lack of public health care and the rules which govern it (not Obamacare but real single payor public health care) creates terrible inequity. Your income tax system needs better rules so that the wealthy actually pay tax.  There is a lot that could be done to help the despondent but I don't think the prevailing ideology of the US would ever permit it to occur.

Honestly, I don't disagree with any of this. When I said rules I more or less meant all of the hurdles that get between people and accomplishing their goals. Rules can be cultural rather than legal. The latter usually follow the former, actually.

The Japanese have what we North Americans would consider a rather draconian set of legal restrictions, but that happened because they already had a culture of conformism. They could have not made those laws, but the culture would still enforce itself.

Other things are just circumstance. Like Chinese people buying up all the houses on the west coast. Californians and British Columbians didn't cause that, but it's still the case that a shitty two bedroom shack in San Jose costs at least a million dollars.

I understand you point now.  Thanks for explaining.

[crazy canuck]

Ministers are normally drawn from the governing party yes.  But there is no constitutional requirement that only government side MPs be appointed and there have been exceptions.  Having said that I think that it is very much a strength of our system that the cabinet is drawn from elected MPs.  Not sure why you think it is a weakness.  Lastly given the number of MPs who are newly and appointed as ministers your final sentence is, at best, dubious.

Parliamentary comittees are chosen from all parties, but the majority party control the committee.

How often did a law proposed by a majority government was rejected by the parliament in 1st or 2nd reading?  Not every often.

Bills are never "rejected" at first and second reading. They are always sent to committee unless there is unanimity that it can proceed to the next reading.  It is exceedingly rare that a bill will not be modified at the committee stage.