6 in 10 Americans don't have $500 in savings

I disagree.
And I never said anything about producing less. I just said working less hours. You know about 40/week instead of 60.

I don't think we'll see another housing bubble like 03-07 for a while.
I hope never, I'm not sure why you think bubble economies are good.

 

LMAO , again your life hasn't changed one bit.

 

We're some of the most overworked people in the western world already. Right wingers seem content with that, like it's their duty to work overtime. Meanwhile, Germany and other EU countries have good economies with people working fewer hours and getting more vacation time. I think our situation is kind of bad on this front, just as it's bad on the under-employment and unemployment front(s), where people can't get good hours, good pay and good benefits, especially most anywhere in the "service industry".

 

That's even worse, that would be like us giving weapons to Russia.

Nothing, I was just answering the Rooster if that's ok with you.

So what has stopped you in the last 8yrs of saving $500.

 

It seems like some, mostly from the right, think everyone must only work work work so the company can make the most profit.
All a company has to do is make a profit, it doesn't have to be the absolute most it can squeeze.
A human needs a balance of work, family, and recreation.

 

Really! Obviously you have no idea what your talking about.

 

You have yet to answer the questions of how your life has changed for the worse.

 

In the liberal world, savings is evil and debt is the ultimate goal of life so....no surprise here..

 

So tell us what is stopping you from saving $500. You think liberals don't save money.

 

OP...I am amazed there are not a zillion more homeless on the street. I can't fig out how they stay inside. Esp in the big cities...

https://danielteolijr.files.wordpre...oetry-busker-nyc-2016-daniel-d-teoli-jr-m.jpg

 

That is right. This is not 1950's. Criminal illegal aliens, outsourcing, greed, overpopulation and geo biz have taken their toll. In the 1950's the landlords did not set rent prices that needed 4 roommates to pay for it.

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com...america-will-look-like-100-years-after-frank/

 

When you work less hours you produce less.

In what period of strong grow was there no bubble of some kind?

 

Not entirely true. One who is overworked, may actually produce less because of being less efficient.

Most. Strong growth doesn't have to lead to a bubble. I'm talking a bubble where things have got insanely out of control.
Sure, when something expands, it grows, but that doesn't mean it's a bubble. Just expansion.
Bubbles typically happen near an end of growth because politicians are to weak to curb it and actually fuel it.

 

They produce more than they would if they only work 32 hours.

So still waiting for what strong economic growth period was there not a bubble of some sorts?

 

I said most.

 

Which ones, duing the 1990's ah nope that was the dot.com bubble bursting which Bush and the Republicans took measures to mitigate the harm and get us into a strong recovery and strong economy.
The real estate bubble that grew and burst in the 1980's leading to a recession?

It's not that there are "bubbles" in the economy. That is the cyclical nature of the economy. The issue is how and by how much the government intercedes and the results of that interceding. When government takes pro-growth measures and then gets out of the way as did the Republicans in 2001 those measures can mitigate some of the damage and help to get the economy back on course as businesses are better able to cope. The mistake they made was not having those measures phase in quickly enough which they rectified in 2003 when they accelerated the tax rate cuts phase in and fully implemented them. When government takes pro-government intervention measures such as the Democrats did when they took control in 2007 at the start of that recession it interferes with the markets and businesses getting us through the economic downturn. Had the Democrats done what the Republicans did in 2001-2003 we would have entered a FULL recovery a long time ago and would have had the growth we needed the past 8 years. Instead they tried to micromanage the economy with their regulations and spending and choosing favorites as in the auto industry and then when it didn't work simply blamed Bush.

 

Had bush not started what obama finished. We'd had a major depression close to the 1930s.
And the R's did not put nothing in to curb the runaway train of the housing bubble, they fueled it.

Things do move in cycles, its when those cycles get manipulated that they become bubbles. It doesn't just have to be gov't doing the manipulating. Actually the fed's jobs is to curb bubbles and busts and try to control the ebb and flow of the cycles.
I didn't say bubbles didn't happen, I said most of the economic activity isn't done under a bubble economy.

There were few bubble economies after the great depression. Measures were put in place to curb irrational exuberance. But in the 1990s, the R congress and Clinton thought it was a good idea to rid the country of those measure put in place. And boom, 2 bubble economies in short order. And the huge fallout after.
So, why do you want to go into another bubble economy?

 

Bluesguy is still wearing his GWB rose tinted glasses. For him, everything that went wrong under GWB (and there was a lot going wrong) was all the fault of the Dems in congress, who were in power only for GWB's last 2 years. He'll pin the great recession on them, rather than on GWB's failed tax cuts for the rich, if you follow his previous posts.

 

Government isnt the responsible party for thise people who cant figure out how to save a few hundred bucks.



Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

How does one person being rich cause another person to be poor?

You have bought into the idea zero sum economics hook line and sinker.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

Ok, lets play this game.

So what has occured in this mans history which allows him, as a grown adult, to only earn minimum wage?


Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

Actually, 70% of Americans have less than $1000 saved for emergencies. Are you telling me that all of "thise" people are irresponsible? Seems like you have a wonderful view of your fellow Americans.

 

People need to stop entering into payment contracts for endless new electronics crap and all the rest of impulse buying. He know people endlessly whining they are broke and how they should get money from rich people - but buy every new I-phone that comes out though nothing wrong with the one they have - plus keep buying more and more apps with monthly payments. If a TV comes out with 2% better resolution or 2 inches bigger they got to finance that too.

 

Most, not all, are irresponsible. No impulse control and no budgeting.

 

Yes, they are irresponsible. I can go into their households and rework their finances so that they can save money....if they want to save money.


See, that's the key....you have to want to save money, and the poor don't want to save money, in part because their philosophy is to "live for the day" and in part because the poor make all the wrong choices all the time.