Hurlshort

Yeah, I gave Fallout 4 another go this weekend, but then I tried to talk to someone about my son and the responses I thought I was choosing all came out terribly. It made me dislike the character, which made me stop playing.

I know Bogut is struggling a bit health wise, but I'm surprised he didn't see more time in that game, since he basically shut them down in the 1st quarter.

The idea is to grow wealth across the board. Or at the very least, keep up with inflation. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/23/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/ The rich getting richer is not a problem unless the everyone else is getting poorer.

I'm not sure those are the only solutions. I'm pretty sure that raising the minimum wage, while plenty problematic in itself, is a heck of a lot better than either of those options.

That article is great, and I tend to agree with quite a bit that is being said. On the positive, the idea that 2 out of 3 people have higher incomes than their parents, and 1 out of 3 are upwardly mobile, seems like very good news. The biggest red flag I see is the uneven growth, where the top is growing significantly faster than the bottom. It's a bad trend.

My son left a massive poop in the toilet today. It is as long as his leg and a bit wider. It will not flush. I am afraid.

Have you googled Bay Area home prices? While I'm sure bad financial planning and jonesian endeavors are an issue for many, it doesn't change the fact the Bay Area is not affordable.

Nice deflection. You avoided the 'keeping up with the jones' part of my quote as well as your own financial problems. Well you ignored the fact that I work in Cupertino and don't live in Gilroy, so I guess we are even? I don't really know what your hang up is here, you seem very interested in my financials. I guess I opened myself up to it by using myself as an example, so there is that. I mean, congrats on making me feel bad about my money situation. edit: Although it's odd to call it a deflection when I was basically restating my initial argument, which is that single family homes are too expensive in the Bay Area for the majority of single families.

Suburbs, by their nature, should be an affordable option for the middle class. They are not in the Bay Area.

Parents + 2 kids doesn't mean you need a 4bd+ house. Just because you have two cars doesn't mean you need a two car garage. You can't park your car in the driveway? Also expecting to live in a million dollar suburb added to your check list? If you're going to have that sort of search criteria with a list of things that are outside your means, then of course you won't be able to afford to buy a house with those conditions. It's why people usually buy houses further out to live within their means.

So, are we debating the literal translation of a "self-made man"? I kind of assumed it was a given that it is a figure of speech. My bad.

I'm wrestling with this sentence a bit. Can you clarify?

You had me until the self-made man part. I do believe it is possible to rise up from the bottom in our society, probably more so now than most of human history. Hard work and dedication can get you far today. But there is a point where you have to ask at what cost? I have a buddy I grew up with that has managed to build a business and find a good deal of financial success. He has a big house, fancy cars, etc. I worked with him for a short while after college. He worked tirelessly building his business. I admire him, but I wouldn't change places. He is also on his second marriage and had his first kid a decade after mine. The point is, you can build yourself up, but not everyone should have to. The country needs regular workers as well, and their salaries should be able to keep pace with the cost of living.

Is there a source on this? I'd like to read it. You know, I am clearly getting my stories about billionaires and welfare mixed up. I was originally reading about Walmart employees and then I ended up on the Koch Brothers (who I'm not even clear on who they employ.) Here is the Walmart stuff. http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#253f13957cd8 Counterpoint: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/04/14/phantastical-nonsense-about-walmart-the-waltons-and-7-8-billion-in-tax-breaks/#199b69a45687

He's getting the racist label for the Mexico and Muslim stuff, so those pictures aren't really relevant. At least he's had the sexist label pretty consistently over the last 30 years.

Hah, yeah, my bad.

So what about the Koch brothers? Their wealth grew by $33 million in the last 3 years, but more than half of their employees rely on welfare to get by. How is that raising all ships?

I work in Cupertino. It is also important to keep in mind that the houses that are selling for under a million are the easiest for investors to gobble up, because they can go in with a cash offer. I used to live in Gilroy, but the commute was killing me. http://www.trulia.com/CA/Cupertino/ Honestly this isn't like some breaking news story. The Bay Area is insane. http://fortune.com/2016/03/07/san-francisco-housing-prices/

In our current climate we are not growing our economy. Or even trying very hard to do so to tell the truth. If we want to turn that around a good start would be to elect some political leaders who haven't gone all-in on Keynesian economics and believe they can tax and spend our way into prosperity. I'm not talking about individual tax rates. Those are not that bad. I'm talking about the "cost of doing business" stuff that is driving employers overseas and nothing is taking their place. I live in an area that is experiencing economic prosperity. Companies are growing quickly, labor is not being outsourced, etc. I'm making six figures. But then we look at the housing market and it is clear there is something wrong. I can't buy a house. I'm not talking about a mansion, I mean any single family home. They are building them quickly, but more than half of them are being gobbled up by investors instead of single families. They are being bought for millions, making it nearly impossible for the middle class to afford. Then they are rented out for too much money for your bottom 20% to be able to afford, and more than half of the income of your typical middle class family. Which in turn solidifies their inability to be able to afford to buy a home. It's just not a simple situation.

In our current climate, the only people that are not struggling to increase their wealth are the rich. The rising tide seems to be only raising the luxury yachts. How do we (re)grow the middle class?

No worries, I was super impressed by the answers given in the first couple pages, but here in WoT it is standard operating procedure for threads to morph. We like to blend all of our discussions together here. One that stood out to me was the grasshopper and the ant metaphor that GD mentioned. My issue with it is I think there is a big problem with legitimate complaints about the plight of the real workers getting mixed up with the idea of government handouts. It's not necessarily as simple as telling people on welfare to get a job, because a majority of them have one. Over 50% of fast food workers rely on government handouts as well. The widening gap between the top 1 percent and the rest of the country and the shrinking middle class have little to do with how hard people are working. Now I certainly don't believe that the answer to this issue is more handouts, and I'm as wary of unions as I am bigger government, but there has to be some sort of strategy that will reverse the current course.

For some reason, that CS Lewis quote always makes me think of Prohibition. Which always makes me thirsty.

When you find you have to say such things, you are very probably talking to a social justice warrior. Considering he politely backed off once I explained myself, I have a hard time believing that. If it were true, it would seem to be a rather simple solution to the problem.

You are trying to turn it into a personal discussion instead of a general one. I asked very general questions, and Volourn was kind enough to answer them without going after specific people. It would be great if others could do the same. I am sure it a page or two it will devolve into the standard arguing style of the forums, no need to rush it.

Bruce, can you just let people respond instead of hijacking the thread? Thanks.