Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

Delusions of Average

Posted on by
Reply

Some folks think an annual income of a half million dollars leaves them…average…and strapped. The tweeted image of an example of this delusion is below.  CNBC represents this as a real couple.

You can read the CNBC article linked to in the tweet here, but the image and many of the comments in the tweet’s thread are instructive by themselves.

Morgan Housel offered a couple:

@morganhousel
So $36K in 401k contributions should be added to “what’s left over,” along with $18K in charity contributions (not an expense either).

@morganhousel
If you fix that then the headline becomes “This couple that makes $500K and spends too much money still saves more than 20% of their after-tax salary, which is what happens when you make a lot of money.”

Here’s ODS:

‏@brendan_schleen
Average people don’t have the ability to contribute 18k a year to charity either

KP:

@lightsoutonight
Their house is $1.5 million, with $20,000 property tax payment.  So average.

m night…:

‏@HezbollottaLove
Personally I love to be so goddamn deluded that I can save $36k a year for retirement, have a $200/month per person clothing budget, and spend $2000/month on food, and STILL have $7300 leftover as Do Whatever money, and think that’s “average”

And Thomas:

‏@MintyMultimedia
3 6k vacations a year, 12k a year for “lessons” even though the kids are young enough to need 42k a year in childcare.
The dude who deluded himself into thinking this was “average” was high off his own farts.

 

In the end, though, go ahead and read the linked-to article.  Its author, Kathleen Elkins, shows herself to be delusional with remarks like these:

As the example of one New York City couple shows, you and your partner could be making $500,000 a year and still end up with very little besides 401(k) money.

And

…there’s only $7,300 left each year to go towards other savings goals, investment accounts, or retirement funds.

Very little.  Those 401(k)s getting 36 stacks per year aren’t actually retirement funds, apparently.  And the $7,300 that’s left over is just dog food.  Never mind that lots of actually average income households would love to have that much at the end of the year to go towards other savings goals, investment accounts….

 

h/t to ralf.

Control

Posted on by
Reply

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D, CA) wants the Federal government to pay a significant fraction of public school teachers’ salaries.

What a terrible idea.

The Federal government paying a significant fraction of public school teachers’ salaries means Federal government control of our public schools. Those schools are in enough trouble; we don’t need the Feds getting in the way, also.

Aside from that, this is just another Progressive-Democratic Party attempt to grab our money, this time to deny it to our heirs.  Again.

Apart from both of those, this is another example of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s contributing to the erosion of our families, illustrated by this claim of Harris’:

Our country’s success is a product of the two groups who raise our children: parents and teachers. We are not paying our teachers their value[.]

Teachers help raise our children? No, that’s the exclusive province of parents; schools are not ex loco parentis child care centers, and teachers must stop being babysitters and do the only thing they’re hired to do: teach.

Disruption

Posted on by
Reply

And the widening gyre may be dissipating, finally.

Recall that a Federal judge in the 5th Appellate district ruled rump Obamacare unconstitutional because the tax imposed on not having health insurance was rescinded and the law had no severability clause—making the law itself an unconstitutional demand that private citizens buy something they did not want.

An outcome of this is feared by the NLMSM and Progressive-Democrats to be

particular disruption within the industry as no replacement system would be put in place.

It’s certainly true that there will be disruption—but no greater than the disruption from the imposition of Obamacare in the first place, which entailed the Federal government seizing control of the health care provision and health care coverage industries—a full sixth of our economy—and throwing millions of Americans off the health insurance plans they had and wanted to keep by making those plans illegal.

The disruption will be considerably less than the current plans of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates, whose aim is to make illegal all hints of private health insurance and to seize the rest of those two industries through “Medicare for all” plans, forcing Americans to participate in—and to pay for—yet more programs that they don’t want.

Indeed, both Obamacare and the current Progressive-Democrats’ plans have nothing to do with insurance, health or otherwise; they were and are nothing but Government mandated and privately funded—lately proposed taxpayer funded—welfare programs overlain like a new room on a settler’s prairie house on the existing ramshackle house of welfare programs.

The disruption will be short-lived, too.  The “no replacement system put in place” is only technically true: the Federal government isn’t mandating a particular system (whether by design or by Republican fecklessness).  The resulting newly unfettered health free market will very quickly fill that niche.  The freed-up industries will rapidly produce plans that fit the customers’ needs and wants for their personal health care and true health insurance plans.

The new insurance plans will be based off the plans extant prior to the Obamacare debacle, and then they’ll be tailored to current customer wishes rather than Government one-size-fits-all coverages.  No longer will Americans be required to pay for coverages they don’t need or don’t want, no longer will young and healthy Americans who don’t need or want coverage be required to pay for any sort of it, no longer will grown, adult human beings be treated like children barred from making their own risk-related decisions concerning their own health and the specific insurance coverages they want.

Explorations

Posted on by
1

Illinois is verging on bankruptcy, and Progressive-Democratic Governor JB Pritzker and his henchmen running this Progressive-Democrat-run State want a State constitutional amendment to raise taxes preferentially on the rich—a progressive tax.

Illinois faces a $3.2 billion budget deficit next fiscal year, unfunded pension liabilities estimated from $133 billion to $250 billion, and the worst credit rating of any US state. It has roughly $8 billion in bills outstanding.

They insist that the good citizens of Illinois—and especially the not-so-good rich ones—should pay for this failure to perform, rather than that failure be made good through reallocation of currently collected revenues.  The technical term for that is “spending cuts.”

Here’s Deputy Governor Dan Hynes (D):

You have wide acceptance that Illinois needs new revenue.  If the voters disagree with us in 2020, then we’ll have to explore other revenues.

The first statement is a dubious claim, at best.  The second shows how economically illiterate is Hynes and his Progressive-Democratic Party. He—and they—can’t even conceive of the other side of that coin: that what Illinois needs is less spending.  That what they should be exploring is spending cuts.

Cowards

Posted on by
Reply

The Senate voted on the Green New Deal, but the proposal, first offered in the House (and yet to be voted on there), failed a cloture vote to let it come to the floor for discussion, debate, and subsequent vote up or down.

The Senate on Tuesday failed to advance the Green New Deal, the ambitious plan to combat climate change proposed by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, after what Democrats said was a politically-motivated show vote.
The measure, which needed 60 votes to clear a procedural hurdle, failed in a 0-57 vote, with 43 Democrats voting present.

Those 43 Progressive-Democrat Senators without the courage to vote their convictions included Senator Ed Markey (D, MA), the proposal’s Senate cosponsor, along with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) in the House.  Apparently, the Senate cosponsor isn’t serious about his own proposal.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) demonstrated the fundamental failure of the Progressive-Democratic Party with this rationalization:

[W]e are finally talking about the issue, and that is great….

Well, no, the Senate is not finally talking about the issue; 43 Progressive-Democrat Senators hid under their desks during the vote and called “Present,” deliberately blocking the Senate’s opportunity to talk about the issue.

Senators Joe Manchin (D, WV), Doug Jones (D, AL), Kyrsten Sinema (D, AZ), and Angus King (I, ME) were the only Progressive-Democrats with the moral courage to vote for cloture, to vote to allow the Green New Deal to be talked about on the floor of the Senate, in full view of Senators’ constituents.