S&P 500 tops 1500, Dow hits another record...

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The whole problem with that is you're basically trying to herd the less than wealthy out of your *speaking of rich people* part of the country. People who have careers can't just quit and switch jobs...uproot their families and move when property values skyrocket. Why would people be required to "move where you can afford it" rather than "move where you can easily get to your existing job?"

you are talking about white flight, it has already happened once. Most of the winners in society left the cities and moved to the 'burbs. Now they are chasing the newest and best 'burb to live in.

People who have careers shouldn't need to move if they house is worth more, in fact it helps them. I am talking about people who are chasing those houses for a ridiculous amount of money. What is the point of getting a "good" job but you can't afford to live in the area?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I think its a lifestyle difference, I can't believe that people chase real estate like they do in certain parts of this country. They take on mortages that over their heads and when something bad happens the wheels fall off.

Maybe. I read this and it made me think:

How the Middle Class Is Getting Screwed - New York Magazine

That’s the central argument of Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker’s valuable new book, The Great Risk Shift. Beyond our recent reversion to extreme, twenties-style income inequality, he presents data explaining the new sense of economic dread hanging over Americans. We all know that in this globalized, ultracompetitive age, job security has been beggared, but Hacker attaches startling numbers to the national anxiety. In short, people’s incomes are swinging wildly—like winnings in a casino. In 1970, a family in any given year had a one-in-fourteen chance of its income dropping by half; today, the chance is one in six. No wonder mortgage foreclosures and personal bankruptcies have quintupled during the same period. Middle-class Americans live more and more with the kind of gnawing existential uncertainty that used to be mainly a problem of the poor.

For better or worse, for whatever reason, people's incomes are swingly pretty wildly these days. And without social programs, you've only got yourself to count on. The result is that people have to get used to not only living below their means, but saving HUGE chunks of their income. I mean, if you can lose your job at any moment, and your income can fluctuate wildly, you need to always be putting money into a super emergency fund that you and your family could live off of for a long time.

This is contrary to how most people were brought up to think about money. Most people think: I have a job that brings in X per month, therefore I'll structure my expenses to be X or just below X. Nowadays it seems people will need to ignore their income more and more when structuring their spending because income is becoming so unreliable. You basically need to save as much as you possibly can at any given time because you never know what's going to happen in the future.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Maybe. I read this and it made me think:

How the Middle Class Is Getting Screwed - New York Magazine


For better or worse, for whatever reason, people's incomes are swingly pretty wildly these days. And without social programs, you've only got yourself to count on. The result is that people have to get used to not only living below their means, but saving HUGE chunks of their income. I mean, if you can lose your job at any moment, and your income can fluctuate wildly, you need to always be putting money into a super emergency fund that you and your family could live off of for a long time.

This is contrary to how most people were brought up to think about money. Most people think: I have a job that brings in X per month, therefore I'll structure my expenses to be X or just below X. Nowadays it seems people will need to ignore their income more and more when structuring their spending because income is becoming so unreliable. You basically need to save as much as you possibly can at any given time because you never know what's going to happen in the future.

I agree people overspend, I personally think you need at least a 6 month emergency fund, money that is invested but readily available and it can cover all of my living expenses. I think that most middle class people are earning X they are spending X+10% and when they lose their job or someone gets sick they are in over their heads.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So if you admit that Bush caused all the dips in the market, we'll give him credit for the rising...(which is crap either way.)

Everything influences the economy (and thererfore market) from international policy (ie turmoil in the Middle East that affects oil) to domestic policy (ie tax cuts/increases), and we all know the President's choices affect such things. In the end, he has influence on both the ups and downs. Obviously it cannot be tied to one single influence (ie the price of oil hardly affected the market these past few years) but an overall distribution of his policies certainly affect us.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

We'd be in a world of hurt if the rich were getting poorer. If the people that work the hardest and invest the smartest are still losing money, I have no doubt the people who worst the laziest and invest the dumbest are also losing money, and at higher percentages.

Be glad the rich are getting richer.

thats such bullshit and you know it. It would be more accurate to say "the people who work the smartest and invest the most". Paris Hilton does not work hard, and neither has a good portion of those who are rich. Not all rich people are going to have stories and Will Smith make movies because of their hard work. I know 6 families who are extremely wealthy now, and 4 of them are all lazy peices of crap.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

thats such bullshit and you know it. It would be more accurate to say "the people who work the smartest and invest the most". Paris Hilton does not work hard, and neither has a good portion of those who are rich. Not all rich people are going to have stories and Will Smith make movies because of their hard work. I know 6 families who are extremely wealthy now, and 4 of them are all lazy peices of crap.

Using the Hollywood rich and famous to respresent the majority of the rich is just plain stupid. I rub shoulders with very wealthy people. There are probably more wealthy in my social network between Boston and Florida than there are actors in Hollywood. I assure you, all of them worked very hard to get where they are. Please, don't use Paris to represent the wealthy. She's one of a kind...why do you think she's so famous?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

thats such bullshit and you know it. It would be more accurate to say "the people who work the smartest and invest the most". Paris Hilton does not work hard, and neither has a good portion of those who are rich. Not all rich people are going to have stories and Will Smith make movies because of their hard work. I know 6 families who are extremely wealthy now, and 4 of them are all lazy peices of crap.

And there are hordes of statistics that show the majority of millionaires are first generation millionaires and that those you speak of who do not work hard squander their wealth in two generations or less. So they're fixing the problem you speak of on their own by spending it on frivelous shit. That is their right as americans.