Young adults still not buying houses

You do make me laugh. You made an error. Rambling on about the anglosphere, when Mother England itself increases human capital through immigration without using a merit based system, wasn't a good idea. You could just type "oops"?

 

I made no error. You simply are a poor writer and are unable, even after multiple attempts, to make a point.

 

Assuming you've not given up on the logic malarkey, it yells error. Britain improves it's human capital through immigration. Britain did that without a merit based system. Ignoring that, whilst prattling on about the anglosphere, is- at best- naive.

 

Since I wasn't talking about Britain, you are still wrong.

 

Still struggling with the logic? Referring to the Anglophere (which includes Britain, obviously), when Mother England destroys your attempt at immigration argument is a tad silly!

 

So do I get a variable?

 

Are you arguing that the poster that I was replying to is from Britain, even though she has not posted her country of origin? Did she tell you which country she's from? You seem to know something that isn't posted in this thread, so if you have information that isn't available please post it.

 

A lot of noise in your post. You rambled about the Anglosphere. You just didn't realise that Mother England destroyed your effort. My advice? Try comment based on knowledge.

 

The irony of your "advice" is overwhelming!

 

Kid lives out of van, California too expensive

 

Sounds like you've got your understanding of irony from Alanis Morrissette...

Back on track! Given Britain destroyed your argument, have you had a chance to consider why it has achieved human capital enhancement through immigration?

 

Given that your repeated response has nothing to do with anything I've said, one has to wonder if you are simply dishonest or have a limited reading comprehension. If you could clarify which of these two camps you fall in to, it would help. Thanks!

 

Disagreed with "all" but would agree with "most". People, be they in the Ozarks or inner cities, can always move to try to better their situation going to a place which offers jobs. They don't. Part of it is our welfare system.

 

No need to flounce. Is Britain part of the Anglosphere? Obviously. Does it have a merit based system? Nope. Has it used immigration to increase human capital? Yep. Is this completely inconsistent with your argument? Yep.

Try knowledge based comment! It's a whizz

 

It's not just college, but a STEM degree. Yesterday while ordering takeout from a restaurant, I talked to the host while waiting for my meal. He was a young guy, early 20s, who'd just moved from Weatherford, TX where he'd been attending a community college to Arlington, TX to attend UTA for his "musical theater" degree. Is there any doubt he'll not only become part of the heavily indebted 34% with a degree but no job other than minimum wage as a waiter?

Everyone benefits from higher education, but not everyone needs to go to college. Most can benefit from a Vo-Tech program at a community college (not one of those "vo-tech" over-priced schools like Lincoln Tech or AIT)

 

Houses cost 10 times more than they did in the 1950's relative to average income.

I had to buy a 'fixer' (which I recomend anyone who can use a saw and a paintbrush do) to afford a house.

 

It depends. Houses have always been expensive. What changed in the 80s and later was that government-backed loans reduced the down from it's usual 20%. This, along with ARMs, caused a surge in people buying homes they couldn't afford, but which they were gambling that they could sell before the rates rose while making a profit. After that all collapsed, things went back to the way they should be. Back in the day, people didn't buy a 2,000sq ft house with pool straight out of college. They bought a 2 bedroom, 1 bath "starter home". Something they could afford and put equity into. After a couple of years, with a second kid, they'd sell, use and use the equity to buy a bigger home. Eventually, after 20 years and 2-3 moves, they'd be in a four-bedroom home with family room and pool.

Nowadays, the best "starter home" is a condo or a townhome.

 

Britain is part of the Anglosphere, it's not the entirety of the Anglosphere. If I had meant Britain, I would have said Britain. But I didn't. I said Anglosphere, something that you either think is a synonym for Britain, or...back to my question that you ignored, are you simply being dishonest or have a limited reading comprehension?

Which is it?

 

We're making progress. Glad that you've admitted that, when referring to the Anglosphere, Britain is an automatic inclusion. Let's see if you can make an additional step and realise Britain's importance for your effort. Do you agree that Britain has used immigration to improve human capital levels?

Don't let me down now. I'm seeing growth in your knowledge base.

 

Where did I claim that Britain was not part of the Anglosphere?

 

Please don't dodge my simple question: Do you agree that Britain has used immigration to improve human capital levels?

 

Your question has nothing to do with what I've posted. I'm not from Britain, and made no claims about it's immigration system.

You however thought I did, and I think I just figured out why!

At first, I thought that you were either a troll or just dumb, but it suddenly occurred to me, based on a discussion on another thread where the other poster thought two opposite meaning words meant the same thing, that you didn't understand what I meant in the first place. I now think that you thought the "Anglosphere" was some sort of fancy word for either the United Kingdom or the British Isles. At some point you must have Googled it, but after insisting for several posts that I meant Britain when I deliberately used the term Anglosphere, you were afraid to back down, so you charged ahead, splashing ignorance and distraction all over this thread.

So you didn't start out as a troll, but you ended up as one to avoid the obvious second conclusion.

 

I do hate to see you struggle. I made no suggestion that you referred to Britain. I did, however, refer to Britain to demonstrate the stupidity of your point: i.e. No merit based system, but still human capital enhancing immigration.

Now I have asked you several times to explain how Britain has achieved that (demonstrating the irrelevance of merit based systems), but you haven't been capable of logical reply. Bit of a shame that!

 

au contraire!

Your very next post...

You clearly thought the "Anglosphere" was Britain.

So again, asking me about Britain is off topic since I didn't bring it up, you did. Let's face it, you're busted. So why do you think I should respond to a question about Britain when I wasn't talking about Britain?

 

That's a pathetic attempt! I referred to Mother England because it destroyed your effort: No merit based system, but higher human capital levels. You've flounced since, rather than confront that reality.

Now you had 2 choices. First, admit the empirical reality and how British reality made you look foolish. A sensible reaction no less. Second, dodge and hide. Choosing the latter was unfortunate.