[6cylVWguy]

No offense to liberal arts, art history, etc.., but job market obviously doesn’t value those degrees that much. They are simply not worth money people pay.

This line of discussion, which I've seen throughout this thread, is so tired and ridiculous. People make their own decisions in life. People can also, if they put in the time, can be successful (however one wants to define it) in any field. And given the nature of college, many people either don't know or switch their majors as they progress. The flip side of the coin, is people making this tired argument that people shouldn't be english, fine arts, or sociology majors focusing strictly on earning potential. Maybe there's some merit there, but there's also the perspective of people who loathe STEM topics like I loathe history (as a major in college anyway). So you suggest people do something they dislike to "make the cost of college worth it"? I mean, how good of an engineer will you be if you would rather be reading/writing poetry? Could you even get through the math if you're not interested in it? This whole concept that liberal arts is silly, is itself silly. Certainly there's been some attention to medical schools accepting students with liberal arts degrees vs traditional science degrees. And from what I've seen, there are many avenues into law school.

And if I'm honest, sales can be a great way to make cash and doesn't typically require a specific major. The good sales people at my company are making $250k+/yr and don't have advanced degree (well, 2 of them have PhDs after doing my job for several years before transitioning into a sales-only role). So I mean, if after you get your fine arts degree your aren't doing fine arts work or getting paid enough, there are options out there. Again though, it goes back to core priorities. Lots of people don't care about making much money and success is only defined by being able to do what they like.

My cousin went to out of state school to study biology, not only are her options are pretty limited with undergrad in biology but on top of that she’s paying (financing) out-of-state tuition. Simply stupid decisions with long term consequences.

Your comment is literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Your options with a biology degree can be pretty substantial. A lot of it requires a more advanced degree however. If she's interested in a PhD in biology, her tuition would be paid for and she would get a small stipend. After her PhD, she could do a lot of things that pay well. Instead of a PhD, she could get a PharmD, which has many possible career options many of which pay nicely. If she has half a personality, she could take her bachelor's in biology and be a pharma sales rep and make money hand over fist. Her loans would be paid off fairy quickly.

The reality is that college costs a lot of money these days. But to say that only certain degrees are worth getting because jobs pay a certain amount right after college is about the dumbest things I've ever heard. If people getting these loans are too stupid to know what they're going to owe after they graduate, that's on them. I took out loans in grad school---about $40k over a 7 year period (MA then PhD). Some of that was related to living expenses, some of it was for spending money, and some was for car mods. All that was paid off within 10 yrs of graduation. And my degrees were psych (BA), neuroscience/psych (MA), neurobiology (PhD). I made it work. I found a way to use my education, make good money, and not have to remain at the bench. I know other people in my PhD program who went on to law school (patent) and others who worked for various investment institutions. They're all doing great.

 

[The_Real_Stack]

No one says don’t study liberal arts.
They say don’t go into crushing debt to study liberal arts because it’s not likely (not impossible but not likely) to provide you a living to pay that debt back off.

If you are able to get scholarships, or pay for your education in other ways, go nuts. But if you take on $100k of debt getting an arts degree, can’t find a job, and complain to me about not being able to pay your debts, I don’t look at that any differently than I do someone who racks up the same debt on CCs going on vacation and buying iPhones and the dreaded avocado toast.

 

[child_in_time]

This line of discussion, which I've seen throughout this thread, is so tired and ridiculous. People make their own decisions in life. People can also, if they put in the time, can be successful (however one wants to define it) in any field. And given the nature of college, many people either don't know or switch their majors as they progress. The flip side of the coin, is people making this tired argument that people shouldn't be english, fine arts, or sociology majors focusing strictly on earning potential. Maybe there's some merit there, but there's also the perspective of people who loathe STEM topics like I loathe history (as a major in college anyway). So you suggest people do something they dislike to "make the cost of college worth it"? I mean, how good of an engineer will you be if you would rather be reading/writing poetry? Could you even get through the math if you're not interested in it? This whole concept that liberal arts is silly, is itself silly. Certainly there's been some attention to medical schools accepting students with liberal arts degrees vs traditional science degrees. And from what I've seen, there are many avenues into law school.

And if I'm honest, sales can be a great way to make cash and doesn't typically require a specific major. The good sales people at my company are making $250k+/yr and don't have advanced degree (well, 2 of them have PhDs after doing my job for several years before transitioning into a sales-only role). So I mean, if after you get your fine arts degree your aren't doing fine arts work or getting paid enough, there are options out there. Again though, it goes back to core priorities. Lots of people don't care about making much money and success is only defined by being able to do what they like.


Your comment is literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Your options with a biology degree can be pretty substantial. A lot of it requires a more advanced degree however. If she's interested in a PhD in biology, her tuition would be paid for and she would get a small stipend. After her PhD, she could do a lot of things that pay well. Instead of a PhD, she could get a PharmD, which has many possible career options many of which pay nicely. If she has half a personality, she could take her bachelor's in biology and be a pharma sales rep and make money hand over fist. Her loans would be paid off fairy quickly.

The reality is that college costs a lot of money these days. But to say that only certain degrees are worth getting because jobs pay a certain amount right after college is about the dumbest things I've ever heard. If people getting these loans are too stupid to know what they're going to owe after they graduate, that's on them. I took out loans in grad school---about $40k over a 7 year period (MA then PhD). Some of that was related to living expenses, some of it was for spending money, and some was for car mods. All that was paid off within 10 yrs of graduation. And my degrees were psych (BA), neuroscience/psych (MA), neurobiology (PhD). I made it work. I found a way to use my education, make good money, and not have to remain at the bench. I know other people in my PhD program who went on to law school (patent) and others who worked for various investment institutions. They're all doing great.

Well try getting a job with undergrad in biology and see what you get out of it. Yes it's a good step towards masters or PHd but that's not the point.

 

[Stromaluski]

I have to come back to Dave Car Guy's point from a couple pages back, there's many more people on earth now than there was even 20 years ago. I don't believe in pure socialism and definitely not communism, but I'm a firm believer that we all do better when we all do better, in other words it behooves us to have our neighbors do well. Our system worked for a smaller population, but it's time to modify it for our current situation. Tax the rich, raise minimum wage, and stop putting corporate profits over people

100%. Rising waters lift all boats.

 

[cockerpunk]

Again, where did I say the things you said I did? What I said was that without a specific education and knowledge all the communication ability in the world won't help you in many fields. Go be a neurosurgeon as an excellent communicator and let me know how that works out. Go be an aerospace engineer with your humanities degree. Hell, go be an accountant without an accounting or related degree. It just isn't going to happen.

I'm sorry if you keep taking this as a personal affront, but it sounds like you have been coddled too much by parents telling you that you are some sort of special unique creation. Here's a hint, if you were so special, then your value would be obvious to everyone around you.

ahahah, classic boomer gaslighting. combined with a healthy bit of strawmaning. as if i needed any more evidence that you were not a serious person.

bave, i take it back, never change. you are a example for all to see of the failure of your generation and its flawed thinking, and what world it has built for your children.

 

[6cylVWguy]

No one says don’t study liberal arts.
They say don’t go into crushing debt to study liberal arts because it’s not likely (not impossible but not likely) to provide you a living to pay that debt back off.

If you are able to get scholarships, or pay for your education in other ways, go nuts. But if you take on $100k of debt getting an arts degree, can’t find a job, and complain to me about not being able to pay your debts, I don’t look at that any differently than I do someone who racks up the same debt on CCs going on vacation and buying iPhones and the dreaded avocado toast.

Like anything, you want to get into the best program you can for anything. That costs substantial money either way. Going to a subpar program just to save money seems to be a surefire way to guarantee you'll never do well in your area. One thing I do agree with you about is the complaining. I knew what I was in for when I signed off on loans. Wasn't 100% sure what I'd be doing to pay it off, but I never complained out it. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, as they say.

I hear people on this forum are willing to go into substantial debt for avocado toast. As long as I don't hear them complaining about it though, I'm fine.

 

[cockerpunk]

No one says don’t study liberal arts.
They say don’t go into crushing debt to study liberal arts because it’s not likely (not impossible but not likely) to provide you a living to pay that debt back off.

If you are able to get scholarships, or pay for your education in other ways, go nuts. But if you take on $100k of debt getting an arts degree, can’t find a job, and complain to me about not being able to pay your debts, I don’t look at that any differently than I do someone who racks up the same debt on CCs going on vacation and buying iPhones and the dreaded avocado toast.

except that a degree in liberal arts produces value, and is not a sunk cost like a vacation or CC debt. a value that you enjoy every day. that companies need desperately, but is sadly largely an underpaid value.

again, the only reason "the technical" degrees pay more, is because they can be nationalized to kill people very quickly and easily. the only reason the "the human" degrees don't pay out more, is because they arnt super useful in killing people. in terms of value creation at a company, companies are DESPERATE for the skill sets that liberal arts degrees teach, they just havnt seemed to figure it out. or rather, the successful ones have more of it figured out more often than unsuccessful ones. every successful technical project required just as much liberal arts skills as technical, but the folks don't get paid or rewarded for it. because its not "real" work, because it can't be used to kill people.

a good manager who understands his project, his people, his customers needs, and manages it effectively is infinitely more valuable than someone who knows how to weld. the success or failure of a project almost never relies on someone's skill welding. it does however hinge every single day on the effectiveness of managing the project, and the humans that come with it.

 

[The_Real_Stack]

Like anything, you want to get into the best program you can for anything. That costs substantial money either way. Going to a subpar program just to save money seems to be a surefire way to guarantee you'll never do well in your area. One thing I do agree with you about is the complaining. I knew what I was in for when I signed off on loans. Wasn't 100% sure what I'd be doing to pay it off, but I never complained out it. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, as they say.

I hear people on this forum are willing to go into substantial debt for avocado toast. As long as I don't hear them complaining about it though, I'm fine.

Not necessarily. If my kid wants to be a teacher, I will not push her to go to my Alma Mater which will cost a zillion dollars a year. I will push her to go to the local state teacher’s college which costs a lot less and has a decent but far from stellar reputation, but which will lead to some job opportunities.

You don’t say I need a car, I better run out and buy an S550 Mercedes; you weigh your needs and wants and budget and buy what makes sense for your situation. Same with college.

 

[beefjerky]

again, the only reason "the technical" degrees pay more, is because they can be nationalized to kill people very quickly and easily. the only reason the "the human" degrees don't pay out more, is because they arnt super useful in killing people.

I think you have an otherwise valid point, but this part detracts from your overall argument. To really play devil's advocate, successful propaganda is incredibly useful in killing people. The reason technical degrees pay more is because there's always a demand for people who are able to fix/build/revamp the physical pieces of our infrastructure.
I do agree with arts being important, I'm not really artsy but I dabble in photography, love listening to music and watching movies, and philosophic discussion even if these aren't objectively "important", as well as your point of being able to convey ideas and communicate with a team.

 

[The_Real_Stack]

except that a degree in liberal arts produces value, and is not a sunk cost like a vacation or CC debt. a value that you enjoy every day. that companies need desperately, but is sadly largely an underpaid value.

again, the only reason "the technical" degrees pay more, is because they can be nationalized to kill people very quickly and easily. the only reason the "the human" degrees don't pay out more, is because they arnt super useful in killing people. in terms of value creation at a company, companies are DESPERATE for the skill sets that liberal arts degrees teach, they just havnt seemed to figure it out. or rather, the successful ones have more of it figured out more often than unsuccessful ones. every successful technical project required just as much liberal arts skills as technical, but the folks don't get paid or rewarded for it. because its not "real" work, because it can't be used to kill people.

a good manager who understands his project, his people, his customers needs, and manages it effectively is infinitely more valuable than someone who knows how to weld. the success or failure of a project almost never relies on someone's skill welding. it does however hinge every single day on the effectiveness of managing the project, and the humans that come with it.

what sort of fever dream creates this kind of delusions?

 

[bave]

Yeah, that's the conclusion any rational person would first jump to...:screwy:

Did you have an actual point to make or just that you don't like someone who disagrees with you? Do you think the MSFT CEO is somehow raping the average MSFT employee because his compensation is a huge multiple of their average salary? Despite the average being extremely high? It's an irrelevant metric in the context you are trying to use it.

I have ethical issues with automation for the reasons you bring up. We need to shift to a people first corporate culture. That's what all of my viewpoints are based on.

This is where I go back to "human nature". I get what you are saying, but that is something that is simply not in the realm of the world we currently occupy. You would have to get entire industries, globally, and top to bottom to agree with this principal in order for it to work. Over the last ~40 years the alternative the local labor problems has been foreign labor pools. The future solution will be automation. I don't remember hearing about a single bank around the globe protecting tellers from losing their jobs courtesy of ATMs.

I do not value business margins over the livelihoods of people. If that's your perogative, that's fine, but acknowledge it. To me I think limiting the amount of millionaires is less egregious than people living under mountains of debt, working for wages that are not keeping up with the cost of living.

Oh, I have no issue with people have their own values and goals, that's great. The problem is that owners (whether outright private, or public shares) generally invest on an expected return compared to risk profile, aka: show me the money.

Here's a livable wage, working 40 hours a week and not having to live in a one bedroom apartment with with an entire family. If you make $9 an hour (average fast food wage) and work 40hrs/week for 4 weeks, you have a pre tax income of 1440, less than the US average rent.

If you are working at fast food as an adult, you made some interesting choices. A classic point, I employ a pretty good number of people. My hiring managers struggle to find people who will responsibly show up on time, in good order, to do basic unskilled labor jobs at $15/hr. This is not in a high COL area either.

All this to say that 15$ an hour is a fair wage for an entry job an any industry, as it should give you enough money after tax to make rent, buy food, and have access to transportation.

No major disagreement, but again, see above. I know you can say this is anecdotal or just BS, but it isn't. I talk to tons of business owners all over the country and it is universal. We have ~30% of job applicants for basic entry level jobs failing drug tests. Another 20% failing criminal background checks. Of those that get hired, the majority can't make it past 30 days for basic attendance issues. We are talking about inside, air conditioning, non stressful office jobs. Not asking people to go cut slate or tar roofs or something.

And if I'm honest, sales can be a great way to make cash and doesn't typically require a specific major. The good sales people at my company are making $250k+/yr and don't have advanced degree (well, 2 of them have PhDs after doing my job for several years before transitioning into a sales-only role). So I mean, if after you get your fine arts degree your aren't doing fine arts work or getting paid enough, there are options out there. Again though, it goes back to core priorities. Lots of people don't care about making much money and success is only defined by being able to do what they like.

One of the highest paid guys I have ever met in my life is a sales guy with a garbage education. He is however probably the best salesman I have ever met in my life and sells financial services with a lot of 0's behind the numbers thus generating huge revenue numbers. Sales is, imo, without a doubt the best skill you can have. It is however something that is often inherent in people and many people really struggle with the idea of random conversations with people where you are trying to drive a sale.

 

[bave]

ahahah, classic boomer gaslighting. combined with a healthy bit of strawmaning. as if i needed any more evidence that you were not a serious person.

bave, i take it back, never change. you are a example for all to see of the failure of your generation and its flawed thinking, and what world it has built for your children.

Glad to see that communication and comprehension skillset is really working out for you. Again, I am not a boomer, not even close actually. In fact, I am closer to your age than a boomer. You keep trying to take my positions, twist them into something I didn't say, and then nebulously attacking that position which I never made in the first place and then claiming some sort of moral victory. Sheeesh.

I will say it for the third time. No one is saying the ability to clearly comprehend and communicate isn't important, in pretty much everything. I am saying that the ability to communicate isn't all that valuable if you don't have something meaningful to communicate. The best wordsmith in the world, doesn't get asked for their advice and opinion on a legal, accounting, financial, medical, or engineering problem, do they? Just so happens, a lot of those fields require technical training and are often well paid.

A great communicator without a great skillset behind it often ends up as a bartender, waiter/waitress, or a barista.

 

[beefjerky]

If you are working at fast food as an adult, you made some interesting choices. A classic point, I employ a pretty good number of people. My hiring managers struggle to find people who will responsibly show up on time, in good order, to do basic unskilled labor jobs at $15/hr. This is not in a high COL area either.



No major disagreement, but again, see above. I know you can say this is anecdotal or just BS, but it isn't. I talk to tons of business owners all over the country and it is universal. We have ~30% of job applicants for basic entry level jobs failing drug tests. Another 20% failing criminal background checks. Of those that get hired, the majority can't make it past 30 days for basic attendance issues. We are talking about inside, air conditioning, non stressful office jobs. Not asking people to go cut slate or tar roofs or something.

I can meet with you on these two points. If someone can't meet the requirements of the job, they don't deserve it. I stand by my raise the wage opinion, but our other disagreements seem more philosophical, I'm sure it's naïve to want a more philanthropical corporate culture but again that's just a personal philosophy.

 

[bave]

I can meet with you on these two points. If someone can't meet the requirements of the job, they don't deserve it. I stand by my raise the wage opinion, but our other disagreements seem more philosophical, I'm sure it's naïve to want a more philanthropical corporate culture but again that's just a personal philosophy.

I don't have issue with any of these statements. You can wish for a better world in all sorts of manner and you can support companies and groups that hold similar beliefs and viewpoints, that is what has given rise to the whole ESG investing wave that has become so popular right now.

 

[CostcoPizza]

FWIW if the Federal Minimum Wage kept pace with inflation it would be around $12, rather than the current $7.25.

 

[CTK]

You fail to mention that for the time period cited, we had zero global competition. When it came to heavy industry and consumer products, the global basically had to buy from us, no matter the pricing or quality. You can't cite 50's and 60's era econ statistics in a modern world argument. Why not just bring up the 50's era top marginal bracket of 94%?

Fair points, but there are plenty of more recent periods with more "corporately adversarial" conditions that generated similar equity and GDP growth.

You are getting into much deeper econ/market arguments here, but one data point that I can give you is the long term comparison of the FTSE vs SP500. Going back to 1983 the index return of the SP500 was 114% compared to 98% for the FTSE. Not a huge gap, just a random one that I grabbed so not sure if largely representative. Now, as far as the performance since 2008, I think you can get into the argument about EU actions that inhibited real recovery, regulations, protectionism, etc. This is a long standing argument economists have about social democratic methods of managing economies vs more free market style. Effectively the argument goes that a more free market economy will produce greater growth which in turn leads to outperformance in job creation, wage growth, and tax revenue growth. That has largely held true over the past ~70 years when we compare the US to Western Europe.

A 16% added return seems pretty paltry for all the fiscal debt, wage/wealth inequality and eroded labor leverage that the US took on to achieve it. Not to mention I don't know what companies have been in the FTSE over time, but I seriously doubt they compare to the likes of GE, IBM, Google, Apple, Tesla etc......... maybe I just don't know the FTSE that well but in the broader context a 16% gap between the two seems to indicate underperformance on the part of the SP500

As to comparing market capitalization of US markets to the globe, of course, or economy is dramatically larger than almost anyone on the globe with the exception of China which isn't exactly foreign investor friendly.

Which is why us bending over backwards to placate the markets seems that much more ridiculous. We had the biggest economy. We are still the world's engine of innovation. Our markets are huge, transparent and have a strong track record of generating returns. We should be leveraging all that to the advantage of all Americans rather than eeking out meager marginal gains at the expense of all Americans.

I assume you are referring to TARP? If you think that was to protect investors, I suggest you look again. If you are referring to something else protecting investors, happy to discuss. Yes, you get to offset losses against income, to a cap of $3,000 per year. Mind you, this is after the corporate entity pays taxes at the federal, state, and local level, then the investor gets to pay taxes at the federal state and local level.

I'm talking about the Fed flat out propping up corporate equities and bonds, and basically killing US sovereign bonds. We have zero ammo to deal with the next crisis, which is only a matter of time.

Yes, it is a big deal for a variety of reasons. First, the moral argument fails when you are arguing that taxes aren't a big deal.... for people you are ok with having investments. The issue here is that the investors in question, ie: those paying the double and triple taxation, are the ones who own most of the nonqualified assets that are paying the taxes. If you make under $100k a year, you really don't pay material investment taxes at an individual level. Your definition of preferentially depends on the math.

???

I'm fine with everyone having investments.... even billionaires. But no I don't think it's a big deal, even for someone way lower on the totem pole. Especially in today's growth heavy markets.

What if the company is a California based company? They pay 21% federal corporate income tax, then ~9% state income tax. Then pay a dividend to me, taxed at the federal level of 23.8%, if I reside in California another 12.3%. So, that initial $100 of dividend distribution results in a net of $63.90 to me. You don't think that is meaningful?

Not really. California still has the most millionaires and billionaires in the country, and is home to tons of monster global companies.... all of whom show no indication of moving. This sounds more like a homework problem out of an accounting textbook than anything relevant to real life behavior.

Move on to what pray tell? Are you under the illusion that there is some 1957 Leave it to Beaver paradise just around the corner in France or Spain?

No, but I do think that societies suffer and eventually collapse if any single ideology or group gains too much power. Right now, in the US, big corporations are definitely that group. They write their own laws and face zero material consequences for the laws they break. They are accountable to nobody but shareholders, and even within that structure they often shirk that accountability (see Facebook's class B shares). They kill (or just buy) competition w/o any resistance. Etc. etc. These companies can exist and generate value without growing completely out of control.

 

[Jimmy Russells]

Again, where did I say the things you said I did?

When someone says this to Cockerpunk, I have to laugh

I see bave made it into TCL

 

[bave]

Fair points, but there are plenty of more recent periods with more "corporately adversarial" conditions that generated similar equity and GDP growth.

Ok, you are probably correct without me hitting the BLS database, but I am not sure the relevance in this context. GDP growth isn't really what we are talking about, we have seen decent GDP growth for the last ~20-30 years, better than the EU's pretty consistently, yet that is the same time we have seen the disparity of wealth and incomes rise. So I don't think GDP is the metric we want to measure against here, right?

A 16% added return seems pretty paltry for all the fiscal debt, wage/wealth inequality and eroded labor leverage that the US took on to achieve it. Not to mention I don't know what companies have been in the FTSE over time, but I seriously doubt they compare to the likes of GE, IBM, Google, Apple, Tesla etc......... maybe I just don't know the FTSE that well but in the broader context a 16% gap between the two seems to indicate underperformance on the part of the SP500

16% over nearly 40 years isn't that big a deal really. Moreover, the UK has been going down the same path and rabbit hole that the US has been in this context. The FTSE is simply the most comparable long term index that I grabbed. The DAX is going to have issues because of unification, the CAC is more negative in the comparison. I would also point out that the fiscal health of EU nations compared to the US is also pretty similar. Aside from the Scandi-nations in the EU their balance sheets are an absolute mess, generally speaking much more so than that of the US.

Which is why us bending over backwards to placate the markets seems that much more ridiculous. We had the biggest economy. We are still the world's engine of innovation. Our markets are huge, transparent and have a strong track record of generating returns. We should be leveraging all that to the advantage of all Americans rather than eeking out meager marginal gains at the expense of all Americans.

Ok, I agree, but how do you do that, right? It's not that simple when you take a step back. If you look at our most comparable peers (ie: the EU and Japan) we are pretty solidly outperforming in almost any economic metric. Comparison us to China or other emerging markets isn't particularly apt and it is remarkably hard to compete with a nation like China on the field they are competing on, for a long list of reasons and I don't think you mean for us to compete against China in that sphere.

I'm talking about the Fed flat out propping up corporate equities and bonds, and basically killing US sovereign bonds. We have zero ammo to deal with the next crisis, which is only a matter of time.

Ok, the CARES act was a $2.3T program, of which a total of $500B was available to support industry, non profits, and governments. I am not sure how that was sliced up but I am not sure where you are coming from with the idea that there was some massive propping up via CARES aimed at the market directly. You could argue that the stimulus as a whole (namely through PPP and enhanced UE) supported the market, but that wasn't the primary aim. The Fed did enter into lending agreements largely with the airlines, but they were collateralized loans and it was also something that every other developed nation on the planet did as well.

I don't disagree in terms of what we do with the next crisis, but are you proposing the FRB refill the quiver by raising rates and tightening monetary policy? I believe that would be counter-intuitive to helping the people you are talking about. The problem is the economy, globally, has become addicted to cheap money and the withdrawal from that will be ugly.

I'm fine with everyone having investments.... even billionaires. But no I don't think it's a big deal, even for someone way lower on the totem pole. Especially in today's growth heavy markets.

Right, but you are seemingly ok with people outside of qualified accounts getting clubbed more egregiously. That's beside the point though. If you suddenly had a billion dollars of invested capital, would you declare your resident state NY, CA, NV, TX, or FL? That's the real question, tax jurisdictions have to compete over capital motives. If you tax capital too much, it moves, and that has become far easier over the last 20-30 years than ever before.

Not really. California still has the most millionaires and billionaires in the country, and is home to tons of monster global companies.... all of whom show no indication of moving. This sounds more like a homework problem out of an accounting textbook than anything relevant to real life behavior.

Oh? California is also the state with the highest inequality, the highest disparity in housing costs, and the most dependent on a tiny sliver of the state's population for paying for it. Don't think anyone is leaving? Ask Elon Musk. He has talked all the time about moving Tesla out of the Bay. Look at what he is doing outside Austin right now, do you think that bodes well for Freemont? Look at the aerospace industry that used to exist in California, where did that go? California has hollowed out anything resembling the middle class. The super rich can afford to have homes in California, but their tax residencies in Nevada, Texas, Washington, or Wyoming. The very comfortable tech employees can afford to live in these areas, albeit under increasing pressure, and they are starting to leave. Look at where Google's headcount increases are, they aren't in Mountain Top. They are in Salt Lake, Boulder, and Austin. As we see COVID playing out and more people working remotely it will be extremely interesting to see how this impacts high COL areas and jobs as friendly as tech to working elsewhere. A friend's kid works at Salesforce, makes $220k a year and can't even get close to buying a start house. He just relocated to Atlanta, why? Housing costs and tired of the petty crime/drugs.

No, but I do think that societies suffer and eventually collapse if any single ideology or group gains too much power. Right now, in the US, big corporations are definitely that group. They write their own laws and face zero material consequences for the laws they break. They are accountable to nobody but shareholders, and even within that structure they often shirk that accountability (see Facebook's class B shares). They kill (or just buy) competition w/o any resistance. Etc. etc. These companies can exist and generate value without growing completely out of control.

You won't find me defending big tech's monopolistic behavior and I agree they should be broken up and put under more review and control. However when it comes to Class B shares, other share class owners can sell the shares or vote against the proposal, that's how these systems work for right or wrong. Most shareholder cases are simple democracies where if you have the majority of the vote you can make the rules, if you don't like that, sell your shares.

 

[bave]

When someone says this to Cockerpunk, I have to laugh

I see bave made it into TCL

New message board format doesn't tell me where I am really, so I just saw the title of the post and decided to wade in. I thought Cocker got banned years ago anyway, but glad to see he is back and as obtuse as ever.

Then again, I am sure Cocker will just say it is my boomer ways telling me that I am not navigating the forum as well as I ought to, despite the fact I have told him a dozen times I am not even a boomer....

 

[beefjerky]

Then again, I am sure Cocker will just say it is my boomer ways telling me that I am not navigating the forum as well as I ought to, despite the fact I have told him a dozen times I am not even a boomer....

The Mr Burns avatar is really misleading