Where is Capitalism going?

[NorthHawk]

Here's an article from BBC.com that discusses how Capitalism is changing and how it might look in the future:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2021 ... -is-coming

For those of us who are interested in this stuff, it also touches a little on the current dysfunction in today's western democracies.

[c_hawkbob]

Moderation in all things. Including capitalism.

[NorthHawk]

Moderation in all things. Including capitalism.

And balance (which might be considered the same thing by some).

[c_hawkbob]

Moderation creates balance.

[Aseahawkfan]

We're Socio-capitalist and have been for years, as is every successful economy in the world. Socio-capitalism has been the way of man since they developed markets and nation-states. Yet too many people get caught up in these names and ideologies where they think everything is one way.

[NorthHawk]

The point of the article is things seem to be changing and big companies like Wal-Mart and Unilever are part of it.
It's a good thing to move away from the idea of shareholder supremacy where companies only look to the next quarter profits/losses and to longer term
planning so companies can plan for the future. The changes from the late 70's - 80's created a lot of wealth but also created a lot of
inequity and turmoil in the job market for the average person and some of today's social discord is because of those economic changes from things like
supply side economics with tax cuts that largely benefit the already wealthy.

[RiverDog]

The point of the article is things seem to be changing and big companies like Wal-Mart and Unilever are part of it.
It's a good thing to move away from the idea of shareholder supremacy where companies only look to the next quarter profits/losses and to longer term
planning so companies can plan for the future. The changes from the late 70's - 80's created a lot of wealth but also created a lot of
inequity and turmoil in the job market for the average person and some of today's social discord is because of those economic changes from things like
supply side economics with tax cuts that largely benefit the already wealthy.

In a perfect world, my ideal arrangement would be for large companies like WalMart and Amazon be at least partially employee owned with a requirement that an employee representative sit on the board of directors. I'd like to see companies give their employees a discounted rate on company stock purchases, perhaps in lieu of pensions. That way, they'd be more inclined to emphasize long term success than simply a quarter-to-quarter result along with sharing in the financial success of the company. It's a lot like home ownership. A person that owns their home is more likely to keep it looking nice than someone that rents.

[NorthHawk]

In a perfect world, my ideal arrangement would be for large companies like WalMart and Amazon be at least partially employee owned with a requirement that an employee representative sit on the board of directors. I'd like to see companies give their employees a discounted rate on company stock purchases, perhaps in lieu of pensions. That way, they'd be more inclined to emphasize long term success than simply a quarter-to-quarter result along with sharing in the financial success of the company. It's a lot like home ownership. A person that owns their home is more likely to keep it looking nice than someone that rents.

That sounds like it could be part of it, but the large companies like Amazon squeeze out the smaller local businesses which provide a future for the average person who wants to better themselves
or not work for someone else. Perhaps like they did with the oil companies in Teddy Roosevelt's time or thereabouts and break up the big ones like Amazon to get more and better
competition is part of the picture. But for sure, the current situation isn't sustainable for the long term.

[RiverDog]

That sounds like it could be part of it, but the large companies like Amazon squeeze out the smaller local businesses which provide a future for the average person who wants to better themselves or not work for someone else. Perhaps like they did with the oil companies in Teddy Roosevelt's time or thereabouts and break up the big ones like Amazon to get more and better competition is part of the picture. But for sure, the current situation isn't sustainable for the long term.

I don't share your angst for big companies like Amazon. They are far from a monopoly as there's hundreds if not thousands of very successful online retailers. I don't see where they are violating any anti-trust laws. They don't compare with the trusts that TR busted at the turn of the previous century, who BTW, wasn't against large trusts, he just wanted them to play fair, hence the "Fair Deal".

Big companies are destined to fail. When I graduated from college, the two largest retailers in the country were Sears and KMart, the largest computer company was IBM, and General Motors ruled the automotive industry. Amazon, WalMart, Microsoft, and the other current day giants will one day suffer the same fate as eventually someone will come along and design a better mouse trap.

What I would like to see happen is for smaller businesses to be able to offer similar employee benefits that the big companies can. Small companies have a hard time competing with larger companies for employees because the little guy can't offer the same retirement and health care benefits that the larger companies can. The SECURE act, which was designed to help small companies offer more robust retirement plans, is a step in the right direction. Perhaps they can come up with something similar to address company sponsored health insurance plans.

[Aseahawkfan]

Amazon doesn't compete with local businesses, that's a false idea. Amazon helps local businesses including restaurants and other local businesses around their work areas. Walmart was more destructive to companies like Sears and K-Mart than Amazon. Amazon also allows people to sell goods and services in a huge online marketplace. They have a lot of competition and growing with Walmart increasing its online presence as well as Target.

Then you have the mom and pop Internet players with Shopify, Square, and Etsy. These are allowing smaller operations to have a strong online presence for the selling of goods and services.

You also have the Democratization of investing as well. Robinhood has made investing accessible to everyone with its phone app and no fee trading and portfolio management. If you're not investing nowadays, you're just not trying it is so easy to do.

You also have freelance work apps like Upwork and Fiverr creating a worldwide freelance work network that allows people to sell services worldwide.

You have video services like Twitch and Youtube that allow people to monetize expertise and personal content like never before.

Toss in Uber, Lyft, and services like Grubhub and Doordash and you have some very powerful freelance delivery services that people can make extra money participating in.

There have already been immense changes in how capitalism works fueled by technology that is going to require a changing idea of how to manage an economy.

Then you have the socialist elements like laws and tax credits pushing the green economy and adoption of electric vehicles, alternative energy, and other green initiatives that will change a lot of the economy from an industrial oil-based economy to a green high tech economy.

I personally think people are going to be more resistant to higher taxes than Democrats are planning for. The world has changed dramatically and the younger generation isn't being raised on tax and spend economics being a good idea. They are being raised in a very fluid economy with many ways to make money and easy access to investing, information, and wealth building like they have never had before. I think they will build a very different economy than the one we see now that is far more fluid, independent of government, and global.

[Aseahawkfan]

In a perfect world, my ideal arrangement would be for large companies like WalMart and Amazon be at least partially employee owned with a requirement that an employee representative sit on the board of directors. I'd like to see companies give their employees a discounted rate on company stock purchases, perhaps in lieu of pensions. That way, they'd be more inclined to emphasize long term success than simply a quarter-to-quarter result along with sharing in the financial success of the company. It's a lot like home ownership. A person that owns their home is more likely to keep it looking nice than someone that rents.

First, Amazon has never cared about quarter to quarter success in its history. Ever, ever, ever. Jeff Bezos is well known for not caring if Amazon makes a profit as he is constantly re-investing in expansion and finding new ways to leverage Amazon's business into other areas.

Amazon provides 50 shares of stock once invested in the company. I think full investment is 5 years. Most of the employees who receive these stocks sell them almost immediately for the quick gain and then spend it on some consumable item like a car.

This is why I have such trouble with Democrat supporters and their unwillingness to admit that much of the failure of wealth-building and the like is because the regular person is short-sighted, doesn't invest well, and spends the majority of their money on consumption of items for immediate need or pleasure. They lack discipline, vision, and generally make bad decisions with money even while living in one of the most powerful, productive, and accessible capitalist markets on the planet that has created more wealth for all than any other economy on the planet whether all the Microsoft and Amazon millionaires from back when those companies were in their hypergrowth phases to the new millionaires who put their money in Tesla and Square.

Why is it so hard for the majority of people to admit they don't care enough to learn how to invest and build wealth? There is nothing the government can do for people who spend their money on immediate satisfaction items rather than investing in companies and assets that grow in value. Most people's largest asset is a house. They probably have some retirement account at some point unless they are real ignorant. The majority screw their money off with general consumption without thought.

I also wonder why we have this outdated K1 through 12 education system. It was created during the transition from agrarian to an industrial period and it teaches like it. We should be requiring financial and technological literacy from our education system, yet we're still acting like teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic with some history tossed in is a good curriculum. It's ridiculous. I had to learn how to invest and manage wealth after school because they taught nothing of the kind in school. They didn't even teach you how to calculate a mortgage payment or cost or teach about inflation eroding the power of the dollar. It seems like an egregious oversight to not teach Americans how to manage money in an economy this complex.

[NorthHawk]

There’s a reason the American population are as dissatisfied with their govt than many other nations.
That is the lack of services that arise from lower tax revenues. If you look at the list of populations that are the happiest,
most of the top ranked countries have higher taxes. The reason they are happier is they have trust that their
government has safety nets in place so if something happens they aren’t left on their own. In other words the social
safety nets are much stronger than in the US. It hasn’t stifled entrepreneurship in those countries as they have vibrant
and varied economies with people able to take risks without having to worry about losing their kids education or their
homes should they have a major health crisis or business failure.
Basically they are happy with how their taxes are being spent on education, health, infrastructure, and others all of which
require tax revenues.

The genius of the right wing in the US is they’ve convinced most of the people that lower taxes help them when
it’s really not in their best interest. What has happened is fewer services, more homeless, more food banks,
more people having to work until they die, lower wages, more people being food insecure, and more.

Gone are the days when it was expected that a person could work until they are 65 and retire. That’s more the exception
than the rule today and god forbid there is a stock market crash with so much retirement income dependent on good results
in the market. That’s the genius of the monied elite’s program of appealing to the base instinct of the government being
the problem and not the solution or part thereof.

In any event, capitalism is constantly evolving and the authors of the article suggests we are at some type of
inflection point with big companies changing their business priorities..

By the way, businesses are closing daily because of online purchases and Amazon is the biggest online
business, so I doubt it’s a net positive for local Mom and Pop small businesses.

[RiverDog]

There’s a reason the American population are as dissatisfied with their govt than many other nations.
That is the lack of services that arise from lower tax revenues. If you look at the list of populations that are the happiest,
most of the top ranked countries have higher taxes. The reason they are happier is they have trust that their
government has safety nets in place so if something happens they aren’t left on their own. In other words the social
safety nets are much stronger than in the US. It hasn’t stifled entrepreneurship in those countries as they have vibrant
and varied economies with people able to take risks without having to worry about losing their kids education or their
homes should they have a major health crisis or business failure.
Basically they are happy with how their taxes are being spent on education, health, infrastructure, and others all of which
require tax revenues.

Americans are, indeed, dissatisfied with their government, but it's not necessarily for the reasons you state. They are dissatisfied for a wide variety of reasons. Many think that they offer too much in "services" and that they pay too much in taxes. For better or for worse, you cannot compare the US with any other country in the nation.

Gone are the days when it was expected that a person could work until they are 65 and retire. That’s more the exception
than the rule today and god forbid there is a stock market crash with so much retirement income dependent on good results
in the market. That’s the genius of the monied elite’s program of appealing to the base instinct of the government being
the problem and not the solution or part thereof.

Not for me, they aren't. I retired at age 63, haven't even started drawing on my SS, and I'm hardly an elitist. I never earned over $75K per year in my life. It's very do-able so long as you start planning early like I did. But as ASF stated, far too many people are overwhelmed with instant self gratification. We do a piss poor job of educating our kids in personal financial management. My biggest beef with my former employer was that they did not do a good job educating their employees with regard to their retirement benefits. We had college educated supervisors, married with no kids, that were only saving 2% of their paychecks in their 401K when contributing 6% earned us the maximum 4% match.

By the way, businesses are closing daily because of online purchases and Amazon is the biggest online business, so I doubt it’s a net positive for local Mom and Pop small businesses.

Businesses are constantly in flux due to changes in consumer preferences, and it's not just the mom and pop stores that can't keep up. The retail giants of the past, Sears, Montgomery Wards, and KMart are relics of the past due in large part to the fact that they did not or could not take full advantage of online shopping. The parking lot of our local shopping mall now has a Starbuck's and a go-cart track in it because no one shops at brick and mortar stores anymore. Movie theatres were in decline even before the pandemic as people can watch first run movies in their home theatres. Millennials aren't buying motorcycles, so Harley Davidson may be the next victim of an ever changing consumer preference if they don't adjust to the new market.

When I was in college in the mid 70's, I took a class in Small Business Management. At that time, 90% of all small businesses that applied for SBA loans failed within their first year. Business failure has been and always will be a natural part of the landscape.

[Aseahawkfan]

There’s a reason the American population are as dissatisfied with their govt than many other nations.
That is the lack of services that arise from lower tax revenues. If you look at the list of populations that are the happiest,
most of the top ranked countries have higher taxes. The reason they are happier is they have trust that their
government has safety nets in place so if something happens they aren’t left on their own. In other words the social
safety nets are much stronger than in the US. It hasn’t stifled entrepreneurship in those countries as they have vibrant
and varied economies with people able to take risks without having to worry about losing their kids education or their
homes should they have a major health crisis or business failure.
Basically they are happy with how their taxes are being spent on education, health, infrastructure, and others all of which
require tax revenues.

It really depends on the country. There are only a handful of nations in this position, the closest in size to us is Germany. Understanding the economics of a nation you look at with envy and applying to a nation 30 times the size of many of these Scandinavian Utopias as the most used example, seems like not looking at the economics of managing a population our size.

Even now Social Security and Medicare are two of the largest expenses of government. Neither one of them is cheap and that is taking into account they manage about 15% of the U.S. population or 44 million people. Could we build an effective system for manage 330 million people and the insane level of immigration we have? One of the key factors in many of these Utopias is controlling who gets to come in and out of a given nation. It is rarely talked about as a factor in providing social services. If you are a nation providing a strong and expensive social safety net, you can't have millions of people migrating to your country yearly, enough to displace most of the nations on your list. It becomes quite expensive when a number of people nearly equal to most nations is moving in yearly.

We have a lot to manage providing a social safety net like less populous nations do. Those comparisons are extremely difficult.

The genius of the right wing in the US is they’ve convinced most of the people that lower taxes help them when
it’s really not in their best interest. What has happened is fewer services, more homeless, more food banks,
more people having to work until they die, lower wages, more people being food insecure, and more.

You had unprecedented wealth building in the United States with easy access to investment opportunities that people ignored due to a lack of knowledge, fear, and lack of discipline due to our education system not preparing them for taking advantage of the United States economy. Why did that happen? Even if a bunch of regular people had put money in companies like Microsoft, Apple, or even an index fund they would have increased their wealth a 1000% or more and yet they did not. Why?

Gone are the days when it was expected that a person could work until they are 65 and retire. That’s more the exception
than the rule today and god forbid there is a stock market crash with so much retirement income dependent on good results
in the market. That’s the genius of the monied elite’s program of appealing to the base instinct of the government being
the problem and not the solution or part thereof.

There are many ways to invest. "Moneyed Elite" are the Democratic boogieman that more and more people have been joining through intelligent money management because how the "moneyed elite" as you like to refer to them often start as a regular person who learns to manage their money well. You can go to Youtube right now and get a ton of investing advice from regular people who have worked their way up to millionaire status. People like Financial Education, Graham Stephan, Andre Jick, Chris Sain, and Meet Kevin. All started off poor and worked their way up with disciplined, intelligent money management that they teach to others.

Why do Democrats teach this as some kind of bad knowledge? Why do they do it? Why do they try to teach people that the government would spend their money better than they could? Does it ever cross the Democratic mind that people can and do learn how to build and manage wealth if they take the time to learn. And these people aren't part of the "Moneyed Elite" as you like to call them. They are in fact people like you and me who went out there and built wealth using the techniques taught by successful people which can very much be replicated. They do this all over the world.

Wealth is not a zero sum game. I don't know why Democrats teach this. The "moneyed Elite" as you like to refer to them benefit more from people making money. But they can't make people act in an intelligent manner with their money. They can't stop them from making stupid purchases, not managing their savings well, or being disciplined enough to not sell during a market crash when all available information is that the market will return and rise even higher.

In any event, capitalism is constantly evolving and the authors of the article suggests we are at some type of
inflection point with big companies changing their business priorities..

Big business has always adjusted priorities to changing times. This isn't even new. Big Tech as an example has been treating employees differently for 40 years. Microsoft started a completely different type of work environment four decades ago where it gave employees access to free drinks, office supplies, and great benefits to retain quality talent. They created a highly productive college campus type of work environment to improve recruiting.

It seems to me that you have not been keeping up with the changing world and thus assume things are a certain way when they are not. Capitalism has already changed and you just haven't been paying attention. I see you acknowledging none of the changes I listed. In fact, I wonder if you even know what the companies I listed do.

By the way, businesses are closing daily because of online purchases and Amazon is the biggest online
business, so I doubt it’s a net positive for local Mom and Pop small businesses.

This is completely false. Businesses, even mom and pops, are moving online. I once again refer you to SQ, Etsy, and a Canadian company from your area known as SHOP. All of these companies provide tools for allowing small business to flourish in an online environment. Companies like Grubhub an Doordash allowed a bunch of restaurants which would have died during the coronavirus to continue doing business with online food delivery. They would have died due to the government restrictions that these delivery companies allowed them to comply with while still providing food and drink.

You talk about changing capitalism, yet you don't actually keep up with the changes. You seem to keep going back to this idea of tax and spend FDR type of economics when the economy has already changed substantially. It's never been this global and open to freelancers and wealth building worldwide.

I can literally hop on my brokerage and invest in companies in India, China, Europe, Singapore, or the like. I can apply for jobs worldwide or offer services and goods worldwide.

Companies like Paypal allow small businesses not only in America to conduct business on a global scale, but businesses all over the world. A co-worker of mine buys traditional Ethiopian clothing using Paypal from a local tailor in Ethiopia, while living here in Washington State.

I want to be clear. I'm not saying things are perfect as perfect doesn't exist. But if you don't know that capitalism has drastically changed already, then you're asleep at the wheel. The fact that right now if you have a cell phone you can make purchase from a business be it a large retailer like Amazon or a mom and pop on Etsy or running a Shopify storefront, then you're not reading much deeper than a puddle as to the changes to global commerce.

Then you have the Decentralized Finance push with cryptocurrency which aims to become a hedge against inflation and a competing global currency with decentralized control that doesn't allow the government to print money endlessly devaluing the dollar and building debt loads that our descendants will be paying for ages with the only plan to limit the damage is inflating our way out of the debt until you're paying $10 a candy bar that used to cost a $1.

Given the incredible mismanagement by our government, I'm not sure why you trust them to improve your life.

Though I am all for nationalized healthcare, mostly because I feel like that is what we have now with like five major companies managing all health insurance. Health insurance certainly isn't competitive. It's managed more like a utility with the government putting a lot of limits on it. We might as well move to a nationalized heatlhcare system with supplemental private insurance like Medicare is right now.

And K1 through 12 has to seriously be revamped. It is absolutely criminal that kids in America graduate with no money management training when we're growing the economy on credit and fiat currency. It's fricking criminal. There is no way that learning some local history or some crap writing class is more important than a student learning to how to manage credit, assess an investment, or do basic business math considering almost every U.S. Citizen will at some point have credit, a mortgage, or other loan instruments as well all should be taught the power of inflation to erode monetary savings. What is the government agenda not to teach all these important aspects of finance? How much does leftist doctrines about "Moneyed Elite" and "Money and capitalism bad" interfere with the ability of our school system to be modernized.

From what I read European and Chinese students learn finance in High School. How are American kids going to compete with kids from other nations who know how to take advantage of wealth building opportunities than the people born here due to our archaic and limited school system? Why are we screwing our people this way by keeping them in the dark about how our economy works?

[Aseahawkfan]

It's sad to me that people spend more time getting crap news from Fox and CNN, than following the business news. Business news is so much more positive and profitable than mainstream news which just seeks to divide and spread lies.

Business news is always keeping you up to date on changing technology in all areas. It's probably why I'm far more positive on the world than most. I pay far more attention to business news than the crap that sells itself as mainstream news nowadays. You listen to those lying people you would think the entire world was poor and victimized. Business news is always pushing forward, building something new, making some better technology, and working to improve lives and change the world for the better.

[RiverDog]

Even now Social Security and Medicare are two of the largest expenses of government. Neither one of them is cheap and that is taking into account they manage about 15% of the U.S. population or 44 million people. Could we build an effective system for manage 330 million people and the insane level of immigration we have? One of the key factors in many of these Utopias is controlling who gets to come in and out of a given nation. It is rarely talked about as a factor in providing social services. If you are a nation providing a strong and expensive social safety net, you can't have millions of people migrating to your country yearly, enough to displace most of the nations on your list. It becomes quite expensive when a number of people nearly equal to most nations is moving in yearly.

I disagree that we "can't have millions of people migrating to the country yearly". The changing demographics, with a declining birth rate and increasing life expectancy, means that we have more and more people on SS and Medicare and fewer younger people paying into the system. There are tons of jobs available, good paying jobs in the construction and transportation industries that native born Americans won't do. We need an infusion of young, healthy workers to take these jobs and pay into the social systems we have created that will collapse under their own weight if we don't increase revenues to offset the increasing numbers that are going into these systems, so that means either finding younger workers or increasing taxes.

I'm not sure if you've seen what's going on in the home construction industry, but in addition to skyrocketing lumber prices, construction companies, despite having a huge demand for new home construction...in my community, we have a 2% vacancy rate, and as a result, home prices are going through the roof...they can't find enough workers like electricians, plumbers, carpenters, all good paying jobs. It's a huge problem.

[Aseahawkfan]

https://www.shopify.com/ This is Shopify for those interested in learning about the changing face of business.

From their web site, "Over 1,700,000 businesses in 175 countries around the world have made over $200 billion USD in sales using Shopify.'

The world is always changing. People need to wake up to the changing world. The time of sitting at one job is over. It is the time of a fluid, global economy where even a regular person can sell worldwide, not just a conglomerate. It's companies like SHOP and SQ enabling this.

Square: https://squareup.com/us/en

It's becoming a more interesting world, not less. Business is becoming more accessible and global for all.

[Aseahawkfan]

I disagree that we "can't have millions of people migrating to the country yearly". The changing demographics, with a declining birth rate and increasing life expectancy, means that we have more and more people on SS and Medicare and fewer younger people paying into the system. There are tons of jobs available, good paying jobs in the construction and transportation industries that native born Americans won't do. We need an infusion of young, healthy workers to take these jobs and pay into the social systems we have created that will collapse under their own weight if we don't increase revenues to offset the increasing numbers that are going into these systems, so that means either finding younger workers or increasing taxes.

I'm not sure if you've seen what's going on in the home construction industry, but in addition to skyrocketing lumber prices, construction companies, despite having a huge demand for new home construction...in my community, we have a 2% vacancy rate, and as a result, home prices are going through the roof...they can't find enough workers like electricians, plumbers, carpenters, all good paying jobs. It's a huge problem.

What do you mean won't do? How do you even know they won't do these jobs? Pretty large assumption on your part. So you want a nation of 500 million plus people and growing? You think that will be comfortable and easy to manage? This is in relation to providing nationalized social services such as socialized medicine and free school. You think having loose immigration would pay for itself with increased taxes for social services such as those provided in European nations? That's the context of the conversation.

The housing shortage is caused by a variety of factors that will correct soon and likely cause a big issue. Not sure why you are not reading deeper into why we have a housing shortage. The biggest reason being the eviction moratorium that has been in effect since the start of the pandemic. You basically have a ton of people that deferred rent and mortgages and couldn't be evicted that caused regular turnover in the housing market to be suspended. When the moratorium is lifted, we will see if the people have the money to pay for their backed up rent and mortgages and what happens after that.

Once the housing demand corrects, we'll see what happens to housing prices. I'm expecting a big drop myself, but we shall see.

You have a lot of short-term factors affecting the lumber prices and housing that will correct at some point causing a reversal. These shortages are across the board as we re-open. This is why The Fed is considering this inflation temporary due to re-opening and transitioning from the juiced economy to normal operations. If this isn't sustained inflation and demand, then you'll see a correction.

You're jumping the gun by quite a bit as to the long-term effect this will have on the housing market. Right now you're in a heavily juiced economy where 35% of existing dollars were printed in the last year. We've had very manipulated market conditions and there will be no clarity on the long-term effect of this for a while. I'm expecting a rather big price drop in property once it gets sorted out and we reach a natural property demand point.

At least that is the expectation on Wall Street which is why many mortgage companies like Rocket Mortgage are taking some big hits because the expectation is once housing demand normalizes after re-opening, we're going to see a huge drop in property prices and housing demand. So if you want to get top dollar for your house, best to sell now while you can get it because the expectation is a substantial drop within the next year.

[RiverDog]

What do you mean won't do? How do you even know they won't do these jobs? Pretty large assumption on your part. So you want a nation of 500 million plus people and growing? You think that will be comfortable and easy to manage? This is in relation to providing nationalized social services such as socialized medicine and free school. You think having loose immigration would pay for itself with increased taxes for social services such as those provided in European nations? That's the context of the conversation.

I guess it doesn't matter whether or not native born Americans 'won't' do blue collar jobs. The point is that they are not. We have shortages of truck drivers, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, etc. It's an undeniable fact.

If we don't do something to supplement the work force with a healthy infusion of young workers, the economy will have to adjust in some manner, either through automation (more robots and AI, one step closer to Skynet ala the Terminator?) or we will have to raise taxes on those that are working, something that is not politically viable. There are too many people on social benefits and not enough paying into the system. At some point, something has to give.

Secondly, I'm not talking about "loose immigration", open borders, abolishment of ICE ideals that's embraced by progressive Dems or like we see at the southern border today. I'm talking about a controlled, regulated policy that prioritizes young, educated or educatable people that are willing to work and that fluctuates with our needs.

I'm not for allowing immigration to fuel an exponential population increase. Once the baby boomer generation starts dying off, the age demographic will change back to a point where there won't be the pressure that exists today. The beauty of using immigration as a tool to adjust the imbalance is that you can change policy to fit our needs. I want it simply to correct the current imbalance of those that are working vs. those that are retired.

The housing shortage is caused by a variety of factors that will correct soon and likely cause a big issue. The biggest reason being the eviction moratorium that has been in effect since the start of the pandemic. You basically have a ton of people that deferred rent and mortgages and couldn't be evicted that caused regular turnover in the housing market to be suspended. When the moratorium is lifted, we will see if the people have the money to pay for their backed up rent and mortgages and what happens after that.

You're right, the eviction moratorium doesn't help matters and was the wrong thing to do, at least for the period of time they allowed it. All it's going to do is cause potential landlords to raise rents to pay for those that won't or can't pay their rent or not rent properties at all and put even more pressure on the affordable housing crisis that is helping to contribute to the homeless problem. If I had property that I was considering renting out, an extra room in the basement, for example, there is no way I'd lease it out unless I had some type of recourse should a tenant not pay their rent. The eviction moratorium was a very short sighted initiative and one of the reasons why I resist voting for Democrats.

But the root cause of the housing shortage is not the pandemic or the eviction moratorium. There was a housing crisis brewing long before the pandemic. From an article written in February of 2020:

The United States suffers from a severe housing shortage. In a recent study, The Major Challenge of Inadequate U.S. Housing Supply, we estimated that 2.5 million additional housing units will be needed to make up this shortage.

When we account for state-level variations, the estimated housing deficit is even greater in some states because housing is a fixed asset. A surplus of housing in one area can do little to help faraway places. For example, vacant homes in Ohio make little difference to the housing markets in Texas. We estimate that there are currently 29 states that have a housing deficit, and when we consider only these states, the housing shortage grows from 2.5 million units to 3.3 million units.

http://www.freddiemac.com/research/insi ... rtage.page

The housing shortage in my area has been acute for the last decade. Vacancy rates have been well below 10% for years and currently sits at 1%-1.5%.

[Aseahawkfan]

I guess it doesn't matter whether or not native born Americans 'won't' do blue collar jobs. The point is that they are not. We have shortages of truck drivers, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, etc. It's an undeniable fact.

Is it because those jobs are no longer paying a competitive wage compared to learning to be a network tech or is it a short-term shortage due to the pandemic? Or how those industries are managed? Or is it immigration constantly being used to bring in cheap labor that cuts wages making those jobs less attractive?

If we don't do something to supplement the work force with a healthy infusion of young workers, the economy will have to adjust in some manner, either through automation (more robots and AI, one step closer to Skynet ala the Terminator?) or we will have to raise taxes on those that are working, something that is not politically viable. There are too many people on social benefits and not enough paying into the system. At some point, something has to give.

Why do you think this? We had a 4% unemployment rate with wages finally starting to rise. You want a shortage in employment as that is what makes wages rise. If you keep bringing in immigrant labor to prevent labor shortages, then wages never rise. They instead stagnate as you never have the supply-demand pressure to boost wages. Which is what has been happening for years, which is why some people are getting pissed off about immigration being used to slant labor and wages highly in favor of business rather than the worker. If businesses can just import labor every time there is a shortage, how does a working person gain an advantage in the labor market to boost wages?

Lastly, you did not address what Democrats like Northhawk and c-bob want, which is European style social services for a large population. How do you budget for European style nationalized education and medicine for 330 million people with loose immigration. One of the dirty secrets the left never brings up in discussions about European style social services is European immigration laws, which are much stricter than the United States. We have people on the left crying about requiring I.D. cards and as far as I know every European citizen is required to have an I.D. card at all times to do almost anything and especially to access social services much less vote. Yet in America if you want to require an I.D. card for voting and the like, even you are calling it a poll tax.

Americans have very particularly attitudes about certain things like government required ID, privacy, and the like that Europeans do not have. Europeans are much, much stricter on having I.D., being a citizen, and tracking what their people are doing. If Americans want European style social services, will be willing to have European style controls such as I.D. requirements and limited immigration?

You're right, the eviction moratorium doesn't help matters and was the wrong thing to do, at least for the period of time they allowed it. All it's going to do is cause potential landlords to raise rents to pay for those that won't or can't pay their rent or not rent properties at all and put even more pressure on the affordable housing crisis that is helping to contribute to the homeless problem. If I had property that I was considering renting out, an extra room in the basement, for example, there is no way I'd lease it out unless I had some type of recourse should a tenant not pay their rent. The eviction moratorium was a very short sighted initiative and one of the reasons why I resist voting for Democrats.

But the root cause of the housing shortage is not the pandemic or the eviction moratorium. There was a housing crisis brewing long before the pandemic. From an article written in February of 2020:

The United States suffers from a severe housing shortage. In a recent study, The Major Challenge of Inadequate U.S. Housing Supply, we estimated that 2.5 million additional housing units will be needed to make up this shortage.

When we account for state-level variations, the estimated housing deficit is even greater in some states because housing is a fixed asset. A surplus of housing in one area can do little to help faraway places. For example, vacant homes in Ohio make little difference to the housing markets in Texas. We estimate that there are currently 29 states that have a housing deficit, and when we consider only these states, the housing shortage grows from 2.5 million units to 3.3 million units.

http://www.freddiemac.com/research/insi ... rtage.page

The housing shortage in my area has been acute for the last decade. Vacancy rates have been well below 10% for years and currently sits at 1%-1.5%.

What is a natural vacancy rate? Or natural home turnover?

I get it. People are fleeing the urban sprawl because cities are run like garbage now. Expensive parking. Expensive homes and apartments with less square footage. Rampant crime and homelessness. Rampant drug abuse. Constant tax increases on daily living. I wouldn't want to live in a city either. I wouldn't work in one either unless I was getting paid well.

But at the same time I wouldn't look at the current housing market as an indicator of what is to come in the next few years once we return to normal market conditions. This is an acute shortage brought on policies and conditions that are short-term in nature. We won't get a good picture of the housing market until we return to normal. We're probably another year or two away from that though the market is forward looking and will start pricing that in a year or so in advance.


Another observation it is seems to me the Republicans are stuck in the 80s and 90s and the Democrats are stuck in the 60s and 70s as far as economics are concerned, while the world has moved to a new paradigm of global economics that neither party is doing a particularly good job of addressing. Though this push to have a minimum corporate tax worldwide might be a step in the right direction, all it will take is a handful of countries refusing to participate to attract business to their nation to undercut those who agree to the minimum corporate income tax.

And I heard the same argument about Walmart as I do about Amazon nowadays. Walmart used to be the destroyer of mom and pop stores taking over everything. But now Amazon is the left's boogeyman for poor mom and pop's, even though mom and pop's are thriving with the ability to sell their goods and services over a wider area as long as they are willing to adapt to a new online environment and learn to use the tools provided by tech companies helping mom and pop's move into the digital age.

[RiverDog]

Is it (shortage of blue collar workers) because those jobs are no longer paying a competitive wage compared to learning to be a network tech or is it a short-term shortage due to the pandemic? Or how those industries are managed? Or is it immigration constantly being used to bring in cheap labor that cuts wages making those jobs less attractive?

It's not because they aren't well paid. According to Zip Recruiter, the national average pay for a long haul truck driver is $64k per year, works out to $31/hr. Electricians start out at $20/hr and experienced sparkys earn between $50k-100k per year. They are not particularly attractive jobs, at least not to native born Americans, as long haul truck drivers are away from home a lot and construction work can fluctuate seasonally. But it's one helluva lot better than flipping burgers at Mickey D's for minimum wage.

Why do you think this? We had a 4% unemployment rate with wages finally starting to rise. You want a shortage in employment as that is what makes wages rise. If you keep bringing in immigrant labor to prevent labor shortages, then wages never rise. They instead stagnate as you never have the supply-demand pressure to boost wages. Which is what has been happening for years, which is why some people are getting pissed off about immigration being used to slant labor and wages highly in favor of business rather than the worker. If businesses can just import labor every time there is a shortage, how does a working person gain an advantage in the labor market to boost wages?

The problem isn't pay. The problem is the number of workers available. Before the pandemic, we had more job openings...a lot more job openings...than we had unemployed. Raising wages isn't going to add to the labor pool.

Lastly, you did not address what Democrats like Northhawk and c-bob want, which is European style social services for a large population. How do you budget for European style nationalized education and medicine for 330 million people with loose immigration. One of the dirty secrets the left never brings up in discussions about European style social services is European immigration laws, which are much stricter than the United States. We have people on the left crying about requiring I.D. cards and as far as I know every European citizen is required to have an I.D. card at all times to do almost anything and especially to access social services much less vote. Yet in America if you want to require an I.D. card for voting and the like, even you are calling it a poll tax.

You keep mischaracterizing my position as "loose" immigration. I want strict controls and secure borders. I don't want to make it all comers. I want to be selective.

As far as my position on voter ID goes, I am all in favor of it so long as acquiring an ID is free and relatively uncomplicated. A standard, non driver's license photo ID in WA costs $56. There are nursing home residents that can't afford to get a haircut or see a dentist and we're going to demand that they pay $50 bucks for an ID that serves them no other purpose than to exercise their right to vote? That has the same effect as Jim Crow-era poll taxes.

What is a natural vacancy rate? Or natural home turnover?

A 5-8% vacancy rate for rentals is said to be average. In April 2021, 83% of homes for sale were on the market for less than a month. Have you checked lumber prices lately? Demand is high, material costs are skyrocketing, and construction companies can't find workers. The housing shortage is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

But at the same time I wouldn't look at the current housing market as an indicator of what is to come in the next few years once we return to normal market conditions. This is an acute shortage brought on policies and conditions that are short-term in nature. We won't get a good picture of the housing market until we return to normal. We're probably another year or two away from that though the market is forward looking and will start pricing that in a year or so in advance.

The housing shortage was with us well before the pandemic. It is not a short term problem and won't fix itself when the country reopens post pandemic:

In a recent "Perspectives" piece about the housing supply shortage, Freddie Mac's Chief Economist, Sam Khater highlighted the growing deficit that the industry has been facing, not only during the pandemic but even before the pandemic hit. In 2018, we estimated the housing shortage to be 2.5 million units.

And I heard the same argument about Walmart as I do about Amazon nowadays. Walmart used to be the destroyer of mom and pop stores taking over everything. But now Amazon is the left's boogeyman for poor mom and pop's, even though mom and pop's are thriving with the ability to sell their goods and services over a wider area as long as they are willing to adapt to a new online environment and learn to use the tools provided by tech companies helping mom and pop's move into the digital age.

Agreed.