Moralizing vs Thinking

[Sarkus]

If you compare apples to apples, mortgage payment (not house prices without interest) to household income, it's simple now to the past.

Okay, because you're struggling with putting 2 apples next to 2 other apples to come up with the answer of 4 apples (you know, thinking ) let's compare mortgage payment (not house prices without interest) to household income. And it's really NOT simple now compared to the past.

Average Loan-to-Value of a new mortgage has barely changed compared to 1960, and was roughly 80% both then as it is today (per my Google-fu).
Average house value to income ratio was 2.1, whereas now it is 3.5 (per TheVat's numbers).
So, let's take 80% of that to establish mortgage to income ratio: 1.68 v 2.80
Mortgage rates (30-year fixed): c.5.5% v 6.5% - yes, interest rates really are higher today than in 1960.

So, in 1960, for someone with equivalent of $100,000 income, mortgage of $168,000, and interest of 5.5%, mortgage repayments would work out at c.$11,450 per year.
This is therefore a burden of 11.45% of their income.

At today's levels, for someone with $100,000 income, mortgage of $280,000, and 6.5% interest, mortgage repayments would work out at c.$19,720 a year.
That's a burden of 19.72% of their income.

These are using the averages from 1960 and today. Yes, some people will have lower burden, others will have higher. But this is the median.

So, please, stop the nonsense. Pay attention to the facts, to the maths, and stop throwing out comments that you can't seem to support. Thanks.


And, yes, this is just the financial aspect. There are others as well as to why housing is so much harder for current generation than it was for 1960s. This is true both in the USA and the UK: not enough affordable housing stock where it is needed.
And any "fixation" you might think there is on the 1960s is of your own doing, since you tried to argue specifically against the idea that 1960 housing was more affordable/simpler.

 

[Seattle]

Okay, because you're struggling with putting 2 apples next to 2 other apples to come up with the answer of 4 apples (you know, thinking ) let's compare mortgage payment (not house prices without interest) to household income. And it's really NOT simple now compared to the past.

Average Loan-to-Value of a new mortgage has barely changed compared to 1960, and was roughly 80% both then as it is today (per my Google-fu).
Average house value to income ratio was 2.1, whereas now it is 3.5 (per TheVat's numbers).
So, let's take 80% of that to establish mortgage to income ratio: 1.68 v 2.80
Mortgage rates (30-year fixed): c.5.5% v 6.5% - yes, interest rates really are higher today than in 1960.

So, in 1960, for someone with equivalent of $100,000 income, mortgage of $168,000, and interest of 5.5%, mortgage repayments would work out at c.$11,450 per year.
This is therefore a burden of 11.45% of their income.

At today's levels, for someone with $100,000 income, mortgage of $280,000, and 6.5% interest, mortgage repayments would work out at c.$19,720 a year.
That's a burden of 19.72% of their income.

These are using the averages from 1960 and today. Yes, some people will have lower burden, others will have higher. But this is the median.

So, please, stop the nonsense. Pay attention to the facts, to the maths, and stop throwing out comments that you can't seem to support. Thanks.


And, yes, this is just the financial aspect. There are others as well as to why housing is so much harder for current generation than it was for 1960s. This is true both in the USA and the UK: not enough affordable housing stock where it is needed.
And any "fixation" you might think there is on the 1960s is of your own doing, since you tried to argue specifically against the idea that 1960 housing was more affordable/simpler.

If you normalize for location and size the South and Midwest are at historical norms. The unusual growth in house prices is just where there is geographical constraint and of course that's the case there. That includes places like Seattle, SF, NYC.

 

[Sarkus]

If you normalize for location and size the South and Midwest are at historical norms. The unusual growth in house prices is just where there is geographical constraint and of course that's the case there. That includes places like Seattle, SF, NYC.

Yes, some people will find it as easy as in 1960, but based on the average it is less easy, more burdensome. If you want to simply assert that some people in some locations will not be as affected then, sure. But then more people will find it even harder than the median. So your general assertion fails, and you're now grasping at the outliers to support that generalisation. And you consider that to be "thinking"?
I mean, you can point at those with mortgage burdens lower than in the 60s and say "see, they prove that it's not as hard" while ignoring the vastly more people for whom it is worse. That's cherry-picking.

 

[Seattle]

Yes, some people will find it as easy as in 1960, but based on the average it is less easy, more burdensome. If you want to simply assert that some people in some locations will not be as affected then, sure. But then more people will find it even harder than the median. So your general assertion fails, and you're now grasping at the outliers to support that generalisation. And you consider that to be "thinking"?
I mean, you can point at those with mortgage burdens lower than in the 60s and say "see, they prove that it's not as hard" while ignoring the vastly more people for whom it is worse. That's cherry-picking.

The bottom line that many people, including you, seem to enjoy complaining instead of just dealing with reality. If reality is that you can find houses that you can afford but don't want to move, then that's on you and not the government.

The more you depend on the government the more problems you will have. If everyone just focused on what they can control, most problems would go away. These housing "problems' in the US don't affect you in any way. Why live in the UK and worry that some in the US can afford to buy housing and some can't if they aren't willing to move?

That seems like overthinking or over worrying, wouldn't you agree. Are there some in Manchester who can afford housing and some who can't? I don't worry about it so I don't know.

 

[James R]

The Bitcoin went up 85%. I did fine but that's for asking.

I didn't ask. But you felt the need to flex, anyway.

The stock market, over time, has gone up a lot. Didn't you know that?

I've noticed.

Poor people can't save according to you...

It's part of what being poor usually entails. Didn't you know that? When you're struggling to buy food and pay your rent, you generally don't have a lot left over to play the Bitcoin lottery.

Must is creating wealth for himself and products for other that they want.

That's unrelated to what I asked you.

My political views haven't changed because they are basically economic based.

Sure.

Why do you feel you need to bitch about poor people?

 

[Seattle]

I didn't ask. But you felt the need to flex, anyway.

I've noticed.

It's part of what being poor usually entails. Didn't you know that? When you're struggling to buy food and pay your rent, you generally don't have a lot left over to play the Bitcoin lottery.

That's unrelated to what I asked you.

Sure.

Why do you feel you need to bitch about poor people?

Why do you feel the need to discount personal agency and make excuses for most people to be able to take care of themselves? Becoming dependent on the government doesn't help anyone.

You don't like it if Bitcoin didn't work out, you don't like it if it did work out, and initially you thought I was being paid to promote Bitcoin. Are you sure you're rational in your views?

 

[James R]

Why do you feel the need to discount personal agency and make excuses for most people to be able to take care of themselves?

I don't believe that anything I have written here discounts personal agency. To me, it looks like you're looking for some kind of fight, based on some kind of stereotyping you want to engage in.

Similarly, nothing I have written here suggests that I need to make excuses for people being able to take care of themselves. Don't know what you're on about with that.

Becoming dependent on the government doesn't help anyone.

Yeah it does. It helps the people who would otherwise be homeless and destitute.

You don't like it if Bitcoin didn't work out, you don't like it if it did work out...

Where on earth are you getting this stuff from? When have I ever said anything about liking it or not liking it if Bitcoin "works out"? Again, it seems to me like you're looking to start a fight over some petty personal gripe you have. Why is that?

... and initially you thought I was being paid to promote Bitcoin.

I don't know who pays you.

Are you sure you're rational in your views?

As rational as the next guy, at least. Probably more rational than the next guy, on average, given the number of irrational people I come across.

What was it you were saying about been driven by emotions and such? And now you're putting yourself up as some kind of exemplar of the rational man, while simultaneously acting all emotional-like in your replies to me?

Funny, that.

Are you scared of emotions, Seattle?

 

[Seattle]

Are you scared of emotions, Seattle?

I think you are trolling, are you not?

 

[James R]

I think you are trolling, are you not?

I think the biggest divide in the public stage today is between those who think vs those who moralize.

This was your opening gambit for this thread. Is it not trolling?

What did you expect? A pat on the back and a "Well said, Seattle, old bean! You seem right on the money with that piece of wisdom."

 

[Sarkus]

The bottom line that many people, including you, seem to enjoy complaining instead of just dealing with reality. If reality is that you can find houses that you can afford but don't want to move, then that's on you and not the government.

???
Again with the supposed "thinking". This is a discussion forum, is it not? You think people here go round in their off-line life complaining and whinging and not dealing with their reality? This is a place to discuss, and, whether you like it or not, there are things I don't like about both the UK and US situations. So I am able, willing, and happy to discuss them, to express my dissatisfaction, to "complain". But, here's the thing, it has zero impact on my reality outside of this forum.
Look, if you want people to simply "deal with reality" rather than discuss, to highlight what people see as issues, to complain, etc, then, frankly, you're in the wrong place.

The more you depend on the government the more problems you will have.

Or... the more equitable, the more pleasant, the more satisfying society becomes for everyone rather than just for those that can afford things?

If everyone just focused on what they can control, most problems would go away.

For those that are capable, and have the means to get going, perhaps. But, here's the thing: we live in democracies. We can control who we elect, and we can control the measures they enact. It's not straightforward, and can take a long time. We can voice our disapproval. We can complain.

These housing "problems' in the US don't affect you in any way. Why live in the UK and worry that some in the US can afford to buy housing and some can't if they aren't willing to move?

???
I repeat: this is a discussion forum. And, what's more, the issues in the US and UK are not dissimilar. Are you advocating that someone in the UK has no right to discuss policies and situations in other countries??? Or is this just an obfuscation tactic you're employing?
Furthermore, the housing policy in the US absolutely has an impact on the UK, albeit indirectly. The US housing issues in the 2006-8 period absolutely led to the financial crash that ultimately filtered world-wide. But, hey, I'm in the UK so I'm not allowed to comment on anything that happens in the US. Seriously, is this how you want to play things?

That seems like overthinking or over worrying, wouldn't you agree.

No. It seems like having an opinion on a matter of interest in a country other than my own. You should try it some time. Oh. Wait. You're American. There is no country other than your own, right?

Are there some in Manchester who can afford housing and some who can't? I don't worry about it so I don't know.

Of course there are. And whether you worry about it, and to what extent, is entirely up to you. I don't worry too much because I know in the UK we have a reasonable safety net for people that can't afford. We also have a relatively high minimum wage that ensures that people working a full week have at least a modest income, even if they're only asking if you want "fries with that". We have a housing shortage at the lower end of the pricing spectrum, which is a long-term issue with no sign of resolution, but I don't worry about it too much. There are bigger issues. But maybe you're confusing passing comment about something out of interest as a show of undue worry? Seems odd to confuse that but, hey, anything to stop having to address an issue raised, I guess, by attacking the motives of the person, and questioning why they are even commenting about it.

So, please start actually "thinking" about what you say, rather than coming up with such nonsense.

 

[TheVat]

Think rather than emote.

I was satirizing your lazy assertion, "When the government stays out of the way, people have to and do take care of themselves." As others note, it doesn't seem to match RL for the poor, the aged, the infirm.

 

[TheVat]

Just returning briefly to this notion of governance sans "moralizing" or "emoting" (two notions which are repeatedly confused and conflated, but that's a separate matter)... just, why? I mean, I suppose it's theoretically possible to govern without any ethical principles or foundations, solely based upon pragmatics, but why would anyone even bother? Who's gonna be enthusiastic about that?

I need to get back to some lit I had on the Frankfurt School, where some of them drew parallels between capitalism and totalitarianism - noting how both could end up in the same repressive and amoral place. Plutocracy the omega point of the former, always approaching pragmatic crowd control; the locked-down police state of the latter, again tending towards the pragmatics of control. The Frankfurters (ha) were focused on human emancipation, by various syntheses of Marx, social science research, further development of enlightenmemt principles, etc. Habermas, one of their luminaries, died last Spring at 96, and I've been wanting to read up on him.

 

[Sarkus]

Instrumental pragmatism is an approach to a defined goal, but that goal will most likely be set in line with one's morality, at least where societal direction comes from. First decide what you want (based on morality) then decide how to get there (instrumental pragmatism). A purely pragmatic approach to both is, well, nonsense, is it not? Pragmatism in a broader sense can at best help inform the destination, the basic notions of which are mostly informed by one's personal judgements. Think of it as a feedback loop, but the ultimate decision will be morality-based. I think.

 

[Seattle]

Instrumental pragmatism is an approach to a defined goal, but that goal will most likely be set in line with one's morality, at least where societal direction comes from. First decide what you want (based on morality) then decide how to get there (instrumental pragmatism). A purely pragmatic approach to both is, well, nonsense, is it not? Pragmatism in a broader sense can at best help inform the destination, the basic notions of which are mostly informed by one's personal judgements. Think of it as a feedback loop, but the ultimate decision will be morality-based. I think.

Most people want everyone to be sheltered, fed and healthy. Giving it to them is like giving a man a fish rather than teaching him to fish. The former is more intuitive, the latter is more helpful.

 

[Pinball1970]

Most people want everyone to be sheltered, fed and healthy

Just as we would want for ourselves and our own kids. Charity is not just sticking food in a kids mouth, a lot of them try to instill change.The same for a welfare system.
We should want stability as a species, a healthy and happy population.

 

[Seattle]

Just as we would want for ourselves and our own kids. Charity is not just sticking food in a kids mouth, a lot of them try to instill change.The same for a welfare system.
We should want stability as a species, a healthy and happy population.

How you get it is the issue. You can say some city is too expensive, we need people to do those lower paying jobs, etc. However, free markets do work all that out without talking about "livable wages".

There is automation, hiring fewer workers, the commuting ring around the city increases and if those workers are still actually needed, wages go up. It works itself out automatically without pushing the unworkable concept of "livable wages" and "affordable houses".

 

[Pinball1970]

How you get it is the issue

Fair taxation is one way, equality is another.

How you sort out the mess of a broken neighbourhood, low employment, high crime rate, poverty, guns, drugs is a conundrum.
It is best to address these problems however rather than just keep building bigger prisons. Support these low earning communities with your money.
Yours Seattle.

Matthew 25, one of my favourites.

"35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"

 

[parmalee]

I need to get back to some lit I had on the Frankfurt School, where some of them drew parallels between capitalism and totalitarianism - noting how both could end up in the same repressive and amoral place. Plutocracy the omega point of the former, always approaching pragmatic crowd control; the locked-down police state of the latter, again tending towards the pragmatics of control. The Frankfurters (ha) were focused on human emancipation, by various syntheses of Marx, social science research, further development of enlightenmemt principles, etc. Habermas, one of their luminaries, died last Spring at 96, and I've been wanting to read up on him.

I had forgotten that Habermas was that old--and he was kinda "second wave", so to speak, too, being a student of Horkheimer and Adorno, iirc. Habermas was great and I think the influence of American Pragmatism was much stronger in his work than with some of the others.

But I feel like a case for the tyranny of capital could be made easily enough 60/70/80 years ago, but now with post-Fordist economies it is so blatantly obvious than any denials of such can only be accounted for by bad faith (as opposed to stupidity, that is). The most solid arguments are found in Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man, and he--well, most Frankfurt School types--shares views consistent with Marshall Sahlins's and David Graeber's theses regarding the illusions behind ostensibly "affluent societies". I suppose someone out there might still earnestly and honestly buy that bullshit about "wealth creation" but I'm sceptical. Everyone has top know on some level that it's a grift, even Patrick Bet-David.

 

[parmalee]

Plutocracy the omega point of the former, always approaching pragmatic crowd control; the locked-down police state of the latter, again tending towards the pragmatics of control.

We are almost to the point of literally realizing "Minority Report"--far too many instantiations of elements of such to even begin listing them here--and with a lot of these guys having weirdly exaggerated fixations on the supposed "threats" posed by homeless people, drug addicts, and other "malingerers", it seems as though "Minority Report" might literally be one of the actual goals, as well. And the knowing or unknowing willingness of so many to cede elements of every aspect of their personal lives to the "cloud" (or whatever) is frightening--especially so given that AI doesn't give two shits about copyrights, intellectual property, and suchlike.

 

[parmalee]

Habermas, one of their luminaries, died last Spring at 96, and I've been wanting to read up on him.

Actaully, getting back to Habermas again: he was one of the earliest figures to pointedly condemn Heidegger's Naziism while simultaneously asserting that his (Heidegger's) politics and thinking can be considered independently. I don't know where he stood on that in later years, but that's not a viewpoint which has held up particularly well: there's almost something intrinsically Nazi to H's post-Sein und Zeit work which doesn't necessarily irreconcilably relegate such to the trash bin, but readers need always bear it in mind. More particularly, it's to do with Heidegger's critical views towards instrumental pragmatic thinking. And it's neither "emoting" or "moralizing" which supplant the instrumental, but rather something much vaguer, more akin to a leap of faith (with either term possibly using scare quotes).

It makes these "you're being emotional" type "arguments" ring even more hollow, given the painstaking degree to which such has been considered already. The right's own blindness to the emotional and moralizing tone of their own arguments is what really stands out.