Everyone and their dog keep trying to force me to use their apps, like there's a mantra inside their marketing divisions that apps are the shit. Doesn't look like apps are over. The market is just saturated of "app for X". The hype of getting rich from zero through one app is over, but apps aren't.
VR movies was a fad. You can date a TV by it's "VR mode" feature on the remote to a few years. No one is trying to sell me VR TVs anymore. That's what a fad looks like.
> "The Rich" is the average person in the older generation that bought housing when an appropriate amount was being built
That's one of the fallacies here, thinking that upper middle class is "The Rich". If you think of it as a whole, you will see that the current trajectory means that the overall amount of property that the middle class owns collectively can only go down. Any house that was bought for dime by the older generation but cannot be retained by the following will drop out of the middle class. And it's not going to be spread among the poor but goes up to those who can still afford it: the actual rich.
Thus the middle class slowly but surely bleeds out and all landownership will remain with the super rich. The older middle class is just a temporary place for assets. Once they have gone the situation I layed out will become more and more obvious.
> And it's not going to be spread among the poor but goes up to those who can still afford it: the actual rich
Which will be the children of the older generation of the middle class.
Lack of housing supply is fueling huge economic inequality that wasn't there before.
The situation you layout is not very clear to me, specifically what is meant by "super rich." How do the older middle class lose out and not become "the rich," specifically?
I think the best description of what I'm talking about is the book The Asset Economy by Adkins et al.
The older middle class have assets that they acquired when those assets cost a fraction of the new price. The older middle class die and try to leave it to their heirs. If asset prices are higher than what a middle class income can afford, the middle class can only own property if they have inherited it. No new property is going to be owned by the middle class as a whole.
There are plenty of ways, however, that property leaves the middle class. If your inheritance tax or property tax (both a percentage of the inflated asset "value"), e.g., exceeds what a middle class income can manage, the property will be sold. If you have used it for a loan to, e.g., start a business and you become ill or your plan fails, you might have to sell it.
Who is going to buy these properties? If a middle class income can't afford property prices anymore, who is left? The middle class can only afford those houses by swapping their property for it.
Therefore, the overall amount of properties owned by the middle class can only shrink. It baffles me that this isn't obvious to everyone.
Now, who is "The Rich" in this scenario?
Those of the middle class who own property will do so because they inherited it, not because they were able to afford it through their income. They might be able to swap it for another property and hope not to make a loss. Their income is still middle class, however. They can't use those inflated property values unless they sell which leaves them without said property.
The rich are those who have enough income to increase their portfolio of assets despite of inflated prices, solely to park their money somewhere. Those aren't your middle class mom and pop who bought a house in the 80s and then a flat in the 90s. And the rich are also not the ones who inherit that house or flat but still earn a middle class income.
There will be a sharp divide between the middle class that was lucky enough to inherit land and the middle class that wasn't so lucky. Reading comments like yours makes me believe that there will be a lot of finger pointing towards the lucky ones. Because those are the ones you can see. The ones who are inflating housing prices by their demand to park their vast amounts of money stay invisible. The ones that will be attacked are the upper middle class, just to pull them down. Like crabs in a bucket.
I think we agree, though I find your use of the term "class" very confusing. The ones who bought cheap are already rich in these high-demand low-supply parts of the country.
The fingers must pointed exactly at the ones who are keeping prices high by suppressing housing supply, namely the rich homeowners who still consider themselves "middle class" or even "working class" despite owning assets that none in the working class or middle class could ever afford. These are the rich people who are controlling the local policy that changes their social class. It is not REITs or bankers, it is the very folks with large assets who work to keep their prices sky high by keeping housing optkons limited.
This is absolutely not anything like crabs in a bucket, with people with less pulling down those who succeed. It is in fact the exact opposite, those with housing assets who work to prevent any more housing from being built have put people into the pot by making the game a finite sum with limited housing.
Unaffordable housing comes from inadequate supply, which comes from older generations not permitting enough housing to be built in the high-demand areas.
Where I come from, you do not become a millionaire by working an average job. If you don't happen to be at a C level position, you will never become millionaire level rich by working for other people. If you have a middle class income, it means you have no more than middle class maneuverability. It isn't enough to become a multi millionaire under your own power. You have to start your own company or repeatedly make very good investments to really move up.
Owning something that suddenly has an inflated value does not necessarily make you rich.
Let's say you own a car. You need that car (maybe to take care of a relative). You can afford your car with your middle class income. Over night it gets replaced by a golden car worth 1 million dollars. If it's the only golden car, you are rich. You can sell the golden car and replace it with a reasonably priced one and still have about a million dollars.
But it's different if in the same night all cars become golden cars, including every car leaving the factory. Even 20 year old cars in dire need of repair have become golden one million dollar affairs. Now you're not rich. You can only exchange your golden car for another golden car.
If you sell your car and use the money for anything else, you will never in your entire life own a car again, because your income just can't provide for it.
That's how people stay middle class with a middle class income even though the house they live in suddenly is worth a million. It's about maneuverability.
> Unaffordable housing comes from inadequate supply, which comes from older generations not permitting enough housing to be built in the high-demand areas.
Unaffordable housing has to do with demand and supply, yes. What many people overlook is that not all demand stems from people wanting to live somewhere.
Land ownership has become an attractive way to park money the last 15 years. And there is a lot of money that needs parking. The last burst of a housing bubble caused one of the biggest ways to park money - lending to other people - to shrink dramatically (mixing subprime loans as a marketable bundle turned out to be a bad idea). Interest rates went down, making it even less attractive. The money now gets put into an equally inflated stock market, some of it into Silicon Valley style venture capital bets, and another huge chunk into real estate. So there are a lot of very rich and influential people who would lose a lot of money if those house prices would start to fall.
And even if you would meet the demand of those people who just want a place to live, you will not satisfy the demand for investments.
What is demand? People who want to live somewhere and people who want to park their money in land or real estate. Prices won't go down if you deal with only one kind of demand.
The overall theme of Her was human relationships. It was not about AI and not just about divorce in particular.The AI was just a plot device to include a bodyless person into the equation. Watch it again with this in mind and you will see what I mean.
The universal theme of Her was the set of harmonics that define what is something and the thresholds, boundaries, windows onto what is not thatthing but someotherthing, even if the thing perceived is a mirror, not just about human relationships in particular. The relationship was just a plot device to make a work of deep philosophy into a marketable romantic comedy.
I use a combination of windows and doors. People say they help with requirements somehow, however I believe they're most suitable for verification of the monitored state.
But why do you think your problems would be solved by an SUV or a pick up? There are plenty of family cars that are way more practical for the purpose than any of those.
Yup - Americans hate MPVs/Minivans for some reason even though that's what most families probably need.
Something like the Honda Freed: three-row compact minivan that can comfortably seat 6. Or seats can be folded/arranged in a number of different configurations to give a ton of cargo space. Sliding doors, which are incredibly convenient. And available with AWD and/or a hybrid version that gets 49 MPG. Weight is about the same as the best-selling-in-America RAV4, but shorter, easier to park, and all around way more useful.
I recently went on a road trip in one of these with three adults, three road bikes (front wheel detached, but otherwise fully assembled), and all of our other cycling gear + luggage. I was shocked at how much we were able to fit into it and have a comfortable ride.
A minivan is the economical choice for every family. More interior room, more comfortable, more versatile.
But still people will opt for a larger footprint and taller 3 row SUV with less legroom and cargo space because the fact that it is less economical and they can afford to waste money is a show of status. And they get to sit higher up. And pretend they take it rock climbing in the mountains on the weekends.
Because they're big enough to fit stuff in and still be able to seat the family. Trips to the beach, mountains, road trips, buying 2nd hand furniture are all difficult or impossible.
If you know a model that can fit a family, baby stuff and sports equipment, let me know. Suvs are too expensive
When I had a 2-door sports car and needed to move 2nd hand furniture, I asked a friend for help, or rented a moving van or trailer. For that matter, when I bought a matched set of 5 big book cases, the 2nd hand store used their trailer to deliver it.
That said, I also know how the US has locked itself into car dependency, making any other options almost untenable. Like it or now, you'll probably be driving your kids around for the next 10-15 years because the alternative choices have been taken away.
VR movies was a fad. You can date a TV by it's "VR mode" feature on the remote to a few years. No one is trying to sell me VR TVs anymore. That's what a fad looks like.
reply