The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

A situation exacerbated by ... you guessed it ... government regulations.

Something that government policy promoted.

I don't disagree that home ownership was promoted to everyone. People were told to invest in property, even borrow against it if they needed to. But What government regulations made the problem worse? If anything, the lack of regulation caused it. Allowing banks to leverage themselves that much, allowing banks to work as investment firms.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

. But What government regulations made the problem worse?

The Community Reinvestment Act is a great starting point.

[JPhillips]

CRA had very little to do with the financial crisis. For one it was passed in 1977, worked well through most of the next two decades, but suddenly caused a crisis in 2008? Was it one of those terror babies I hear so much about?

But putting aside timing, by 2006 less than half the issuers of mortgages were subject to CRA and out of that group only around 6% of mortgages were subprime. In the group that wasn't subject to CRA nearly 20% of mortgages were subprime.

Researchers at the Center for Community Capital at the University of North Carolina tackled the performance question by comparing 50,000 loans made to lower-income borrowers and sold to Self-Help Credit Union under the Community Advantage Program (CAP) to sub-prime loans made to borrowers with similar risk characteristics. The CAP loans, which were CRA-eligible, had low down payments and flexibility with respect to credit and debt-to-income ratios, all usually regarded as high risk factors that could result in a borrower being consigned to a sub-prime loan. However, they were fixed-rate loans, with no prepayment penalties, and were made through normal retail channels, that is, at a bank. The sub-prime loans, by contrast, were adjustable-rate loans, many with prepayment penalties, and usually made through brokers. The result: The 2004 cohort of CAP loans had a default rate one-sixth the rate for broker-originated adjustable-rate loans with prepayment penalties; the 2006 cohort had one-third the defaults. The researchers concluded: "For comparable borrowers, the estimated default risk is much lower with a CRA loan than with a sub-prime mortgage. ... Borrowers and responsible CRA lending should not be blamed for the current housing crisis."

Economists at the Fed in San Francisco studied the issue and found:

"loans made by lenders regulated under the CRA were significantly less likely to go into foreclosure than those made by IMCs."

And a former Federal Reserve governor said:

"we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

CRA had very little to do with the financial crisis. For one it was passed in 1977, worked well through most of the next two decades, but suddenly caused a crisis in 2008?

The changes in how it was applied (interpreted? utilized?) led to its increasing role in the crisis, not the more limited application of it at the outset.

But putting aside timing, by 2006 less than half the issuers of mortgages were subject to CRA and out of that group only around 6% of mortgages were subprime. In the group that wasn't subject to CRA nearly 20% of mortgages were subprime.

It also impacted those not subject to it, by creating a culture where it was "okay" and even encouraged to make loans to people who had no realistic hope of repayment. And (depending upon whose research you believe) the failure rate was significantly higher on that 6%, but that kind of goes to my next comment.

various people who had an p.o.v. to push said blah blah blah

We can play that game all day & you know it. Like the former head of Fannie Mae who acknowledged that CRA "might have" been a catalyst that encouraged bad behavior. Or various & sundry economists who point to the various impacts.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

CRA had very little to do with the financial crisis. For one it was passed in 1977, worked well through most of the next two decades, but suddenly caused a crisis in 2008? Was it one of those terror babies I hear so much about?

But putting aside timing, by 2006 less than half the issuers of mortgages were subject to CRA and out of that group only around 6% of mortgages were subprime. In the group that wasn't subject to CRA nearly 20% of mortgages were subprime.



Economists at the Fed in San Francisco studied the issue and found:



And a former Federal Reserve governor said:

Not looking to engage in the typical D-R debate over Freddie Mac. How about we just agree that all of these government/quasi-government agencies like Freddie Mac and the federal reserve banks are all about covering everyone's ass so its not like any of your quotes are going to be trustworthy. With that said the Republicans are no better and probably worse with corruption (before you get your panties in a wad. )

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The changes in how it was applied (interpreted? utilized?) led to its increasing role in the crisis, not the more limited application of it at the outset.

A lower percentage and fewer total mortgage lenders were subject to CRA in the 2000s than in the 1980s.

It also impacted those not subject to it, by creating a culture where it was "okay" and even encouraged to make loans to people who had no realistic hope of repayment. And (depending upon whose research you believe) the failure rate was significantly higher on that 6%, but that kind of goes to my next comment.

But that's not the fault of the CRA. If banks did things they weren't required to do that has nothing to do with the underlying regulation. Do credit card abusers get let off the hook because it was "okay" to run up debt?

We can play that game all day & you know it. Like the former head of Fannie Mae who acknowledged that CRA "might have" been a catalyst that encouraged bad behavior. Or various & sundry economists who point to the various impacts.

The numbers are pretty clear that there was no greater rate of default on CRA loans than on non-CRA loans. But regardless, it still wasn't about the underlying mortgages. It became a global crisis because of the largely unregulated way the loans were leveraged.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Not looking to engage in the typical D-R debate over Freddie Mac. How about we just agree that all of these government/quasi-government agencies like Freddie Mac and the federal reserve banks are all about covering everyone's ass so its not like any of your quotes are going to be trustworthy. With that said the Republicans are no better and probably worse with corruption (before you get your panties in a wad. )

I think there were plenty of problems with Freddie and Fannie, but that's not the same as the CRA.

I do love how we've gotten to a point where there are no facts that can be trusted. That's an oddly postmodern worldview for conservatives/libertarians.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think there were plenty of problems with Freddie and Fannie, but that's not the same as the CRA.

I do love how we've gotten to a point where there are no facts that can be trusted. That's an oddly postmodern worldview for conservatives/libertarians.

I didn't say the facts couldn't be trusted. All that shit led to the collapse and saying one did x% less is just being disingenuous. Money controls everything and when big money makes bad decisions the country does worse. The government from that era is a big part of this scam so why enlist most of the current members (who somehow kept their jobs?) help?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

it's jobs. 30 years ago you could graduate high school and live the american dream. no more. and it's your fault for being too dumb/lazy to find a good job.

never mind that we live in a resource rich nation that could be self sustainable. never mind that the american worker is the most productive of first world countries. never mind that we work longer hours with fewer benefits than all first world countries.

if you're not happy or well off it's your fault. this is our culture.

the good news is the end is near. we didn't pass the point of no return we put it 3 laps down. our primary export, at a whopping 49%, is defense related industry. our primary import is credit. which is like running up a huge gambling debt then selling your bookie a swat team.

our saving grace is that we have the nukes and we control the world's energy supply. but how long is that going to last? we have computers the size of pinheads yet we still fuel our cars with dinosaur bones. makes no sense.

the FEAR is a popular uprising. which explains patriot act/homeland security nonsense a lot better than whoever the enemy du jour is.

i forget the exact quote but it's something like, 'each day it exists is a victory for the empire.' that's how i feel about the situation. the machine was built to serve the people. it's the other way around now.

sorry. i should stay out of the political threads. /rant off

[panerd]

As far as why the conservatives seem to be sharing a lot of Libertarian views lately is (IMO) that they are at least starting to see the problems they caused and trying to duck for cover under a new type of Republican. I don't doubt for a second that the Bible thumper/warmonger/family values crooks will be back sooner than later, especially if they win the presidency in 2012.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

it's jobs. 30 years ago you could graduate high school and live the american dream. no more. and it's your fault for being too dumb/lazy to find a good job.

never mind that we live in a resource rich nation that could be self sustainable. never mind that the american worker is the most productive of first world countries. never mind that we work longer hours with fewer benefits than all first world countries.

if you're not happy or well off it's your fault. this is our culture.

the good news is the end is near. we didn't pass the point of no return we put it 3 laps down. our primary export, at a whopping 49%, is defense related industry. our primary import is credit. which is like running up a huge gambling debt then selling your bookie a swat team.

our saving grace is that we have the nukes and we control the world's energy supply. but how long is that going to last? we have computers the size of pinheads yet we still fuel our cars with dinosaur bones. makes no sense.

the FEAR is a popular uprising. which explains patriot act/homeland security nonsense a lot better than whoever the enemy du jour is.

i forget the exact quote but it's something like, 'each day it exists is a victory for the empire.' that's how i feel about the situation. the machine was built to serve the people. it's the other way around now.

sorry. i should stay out of the political threads. /rant off

I'm not sure I would go with 30 years ago as your example of great times to be an American but otherwise I share your concern.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

I'm not sure I would go with 30 years ago as your example of great times to be an American but otherwise I share your concern.

We really haven't had any consistently great times since at least the Vietnam Era. Some decent ones for stretches, but "great"? Short of that mark I'm afraid, for every positive there was usually an equalizing negative.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by panerd

I'm not sure I would go with 30 years ago as your example of great times to be an American but otherwise I share your concern.

there were 10 factories in the area where i grew up 30 years ago. today there's one. my mom had me in hs and worked in a factory. we weren't poor. i would have called us lower middle class.

if it was some 'greater good' cause like the environment i can get behind that, but then we should have shifted our focus to education, research and innovation. that obviously hasn't been the case.

edit: never said anything about 'great' great is arbitrary. i was talking about financial stability

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The numbers are pretty clear that there was no greater rate of default on CRA loans than on non-CRA loans. But regardless, it still wasn't about the underlying mortgages. It became a global crisis because of the largely unregulated way the loans were leveraged.

If the problem had just been an increased rate of foreclosure, it would have caused some economic problems, to be sure. But it would have been pretty confined to the housing and residential construction markets. It's not as if we're running a foreclosure rate of 30%, it's still well below 10%.

The $600 Trillion Derivatives Market - Newsweek
However, those loans were not just leveraged, they were super-leveraged. I mean, really, we invented financial instruments out of thin air and based on speculation that are worth more than 10 times the value of all money on earth! So that when you have a significant ripple in something like the housing market, it causes a massive ripple when you magnify it ten times through these ridiculous inventions and all sorts of fake money is lost. The problem is, of course, that financially, institutions mix their real and fake money so it looks like real value was lost and what was a relatively minor loss exploded into the catastrophe we are living with.

SI

[lungs]

Big Supreme Court race in Wisconsin has about a 300 vote margin with 5 precincts left to report in the state. Current Supreme Court Justice Prosser was the Conservative favorite and Joanne Kloppenburg the Liberal favorite and with all the recent drama in Wisconsin this has been seen as a referendum of sorts on Scott Walker.

Kloppenburg holds a 369 vote lead out of about 1.5 million cast with the 5 precincts left to report. Three of the precincts left to report are in Prosser counties but the other two precincts are in Milwaukee county which I imagine will have more votes than the other three combined.

[JPhillips]

Looks certain to go to at least one recount.

[molson]

A political and policy-based election of appellate judges is so ass backwards.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

A political and policy-based election of appellate judges is so ass backwards.

Agreed on that count. It is what it is though.

I didn't plan on voting yesterday until some douche bag with Prosser stickers all over his car started honking and yelling when the steady stream of pedestrians leaving Miller Park after the home opener wouldn't let him through.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

A political and policy-based election of appellate judges is so ass backwards.

This. It makes no sense at all.

[larrymcg421]

I agree that judicial elections are ridiculous. I'm still pissed that three Iowa justices were voted out in 2010 just because they decided gays shouldn't be treated as second class citizens.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I agree that judicial elections are ridiculous. I'm still pissed that three Iowa justices were voted out in 2010 just because they decided gays shouldn't be treated as second class citizens.

Would you be still disagree with judicial elections if 3 judges were voted out who had a more limited view of gay rights?

[SirFozzie]

Even for someone who has a jaded view of politicians, the 180 that has been done by the Republicans on the Medicare/Medicaid issues is.. well.. I want to say impressive, but more like shocking.

2010 elections: VOTE FOR US, CUZ THEY'LL CUT MEDICAIRE/MEDICAID

2011: Paul Ryan's Budget Plan: What Happens to Medicare? - Swampland - TIME.com

According to the CBO, a typical 65-year-old with a private health-insurance plan covering standard Medicare benefits could be liable for 61% of his or her total health care costs in 2022 under Ryan's plan. By 2030, the figure could be 68%.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Would you be still disagree with judicial elections if 3 judges were voted out who had a more limited view of gay rights?

Yes. I've always been against partisanship in the judiciary and previously argued, for example, that Alito was clearly qualified and should've been confirmed despite his right leaning views.

I'm wondering if you realize how predictable your response was or that you seemed to have a different reaction to judicial elections when I first posted about the Iowa result in the 2010 midterm thread?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

it's jobs. 30 years ago you could graduate high school and live the american dream. no more. and it's your fault for being too dumb/lazy to find a good job.

never mind that we live in a resource rich nation that could be self sustainable. never mind that the american worker is the most productive of first world countries. never mind that we work longer hours with fewer benefits than all first world countries.

if you're not happy or well off it's your fault. this is our culture.

the good news is the end is near. we didn't pass the point of no return we put it 3 laps down. our primary export, at a whopping 49%, is defense related industry. our primary import is credit. which is like running up a huge gambling debt then selling your bookie a swat team.

our saving grace is that we have the nukes and we control the world's energy supply. but how long is that going to last? we have computers the size of pinheads yet we still fuel our cars with dinosaur bones. makes no sense.

the FEAR is a popular uprising. which explains patriot act/homeland security nonsense a lot better than whoever the enemy du jour is.

i forget the exact quote but it's something like, 'each day it exists is a victory for the empire.' that's how i feel about the situation. the machine was built to serve the people. it's the other way around now.

sorry. i should stay out of the political threads. /rant off

It's always great to look back and talk about how wonderful things were 30 years ago. In your area there was more factories, more jobs and people got by. In other areas 30 years ago technology and automation was pushing people out of jobs, local factories were closing and life was changing.

30 years before that technology and automation was pushing people out of jobs, local factories were closing and life was changing.

I've spent time on unemployment without a good job and without health care. I understand what it's like. I'm upside down on a condo I want to get out of so I can have more room for my wife and I to potentially start a family. Thankfully, I have a terrific job now, but that wasn't always the case. Who the hell knows, in two weeks that may not be the case.

All of that said, I'm happy. I have good friends and family, all of my needs are met (I have food, shelter, transportation, entertainment, etc.) If I lose the job tomorrow, I'll go work at McDonalds if I have to and I won't be as happy, but I'll get by. My grandfather lived through the great depression and fought in WW1. All things being equal, if he lived through that and still said he had a good life at the end (he did), then I'll happily face whatever is thrown in my direction and deal with it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm wondering if you realize how predictable your response was or that you seemed to have a different reaction to judicial elections when I first posted about the Iowa result in the 2010 midterm thread?

Different reaction? I had to go back and look and no, you're wrong. I very strongly believe in the distinction between the work appellate justices do and political/policy issues. I've ranted here about this issue beyond what would be considered beating a dead horse. You've tended to express the opposite view, so it was a fair question that I honestly didn't know the answer to.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Different reaction? I had to go back and look and no, you're wrong. I very strongly believe in the distinction between the work appellate justices do and political/policy issues. I've ranted here about this issue beyond what would be considered beating a dead horse. You've tended to express the opposite view, so it was a fair question that I honestly didn't know the answer to.

I have not at all expressed the opposite view. I think what the Iowa justices did was exactly what appellate justices should do. It wasn't a policy decision. They weren't supporting gay marriage anymore than the Supreme Court was supporting people like Larry Flynt or Fred Phelps. They were saying the government violated the constitution. You and I may disagree on what the 14th Amendment means and how it should be interpreted, but I've always thought judges should be able to make such a determination without worrying what 50.1% of the populace thinks.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I've always thought judges should be able to make such a determination without worrying what 50.1% of the populace thinks.

I'd tend to argue that the populace deserves the right to determine the sort of people who sit in judgment of them.

Plus, what constitutes a better alternative? Allowing politicians to pick 'em? {scratches head} Who picks the pols? Allowing attorneys to pick 'em? {shudder} That's handing over an awful lot of authority to people who don't really answer to anyone except on the rarest of occasions (and I say that knowing at least some lawyers I generally like).

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd tend to argue that the populace deserves the right to determine the sort of people who sit in judgment of them.

I agree with that - but appellate judges do not have the role of sitting in judgment of anyone.

Trial court judges, state district/circuit court judges - I have much less problem with electing those, or having some public mechanism for removal.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I agree with that - but appellate judges do not have the role of sitting in judgment of anyone.

But they do sit in judgment of judgments of someone (or something), which is why I'd say you're getting into the grayer area of theory vs de facto.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by TroyF

It's always great to look back and talk about how wonderful things were...
All of that said, I'm happy.

this is what i get for poking my nose in this thread. an impassioned moment gets turned into , 'happiness is an abstract concept. change is an immutable law of the universe.'

there are hindu priests that spend their entire lives meditating under trees that have reached a state of bliss i can't even fathom. and yet, when my mother has to eat cheese sandwiches for a month so she can get her car fixed it makes me sad. what a world!

capitalism, like every -ism is just an idea. an idea to be the most benefit for the most people. when it ceases to be such the idea sucks and we need to find a new one.

it's about capacity and opportunity. do we have the capacity to create opportunity for everyone? i think we do.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

it's about capacity and opportunity. do we have the capacity to create opportunity for everyone? i think we do.

And I think we do create opportunity for everyone, we just have lots of folks that for one reason or another fail to take advantage. Plenty of folks move up and down the economic chain on a regular basis.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The Community Reinvestment Act is a great starting point.

JPhillips already did some talking about it, but the CRA had almost nothing to do with the financial crisis. It's been around for a long time with no problems. Only certain banks are subject to the CRA, which in the end is an extremely small percentage of the bad mortgages out there. Most of the mortgages were given out by private mortgage companies and larger banks not subject to CRA. Most of the sub-prime industry had nothing to do with CRA.

It's a really bad myth being perpetuated. CRA loans have been seen as profitable by banks for a long time. There are no quotas or anything of that sort. Just an excuse for those supporting these banks and financial institutions to blame the whole thing off on some poor black people.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

JPhillips already did some talking about it, but the CRA had almost nothing to do with the financial crisis. It's been around for a long time with no problems. Only certain banks are subject to the CRA, which in the end is an extremely small percentage of the bad mortgages out there. Most of the mortgages were given out by private mortgage companies and larger banks not subject to CRA. Most of the sub-prime industry had nothing to do with CRA.

It's a really bad myth being perpetuated. CRA loans have been seen as profitable by banks for a long time. There are no quotas or anything of that sort. Just an excuse for those supporting these banks and financial institutions to blame the whole thing off on some poor black people.

I'm glad someone said this. There were and are a lot of problems perpetuated over the past few years and the CRA isn't the great bogeyman that certain people want to make it out to be, because they don't understand what the legislation was intended to do.

But that line of hooey has been working well for years now.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

this is what i get for poking my nose in this thread. an impassioned moment gets turned into , 'happiness is an abstract concept. change is an immutable law of the universe.'

there are hindu priests that spend their entire lives meditating under trees that have reached a state of bliss i can't even fathom. and yet, when my mother has to eat cheese sandwiches for a month so she can get her car fixed it makes me sad. what a world!

capitalism, like every -ism is just an idea. an idea to be the most benefit for the most people. when it ceases to be such the idea sucks and we need to find a new one.

it's about capacity and opportunity. do we have the capacity to create opportunity for everyone? i think we do.

I think you fail to understand how impassioned my moment above was. Most of us have seen horrible things happen to our family members. Most of us at one time or another in our lives have had to sacrifice. And more than likely we will have to do so again.

I truly, 100% feel for your mother eating the cheese sandwiches so her car can get fixed. My father was a single parent and raised me driving a truck. I had everything I needed and ever wanted, but we certainly weren't "rich" We got what we had because of his sacrifice.

There is no system that is or will ever be perfect. And when the worldwide economy goes to hell, there is never going to be the ability to have everything perfect. If I lose my job tomorrow, I'm eating the cheese sandwiches so I can pay the mortgage, drive my car to work and pay the electric bill. I have some money saved up, but enough to get by long term without a job? Hell no. And I'm actually one of the most debt free people you'll find in the country. The only single payment I have a month is my mortgage. No credit card bills, no car payments, nothing. . .

Everyone has a "right" to happiness, but it is not going to be a guarantee either. What you are looking for is utopia. No political or economic system ever has or will give you what you are looking for. I appreciate your passion, but we live in the real world. As for your mom, there are far worse things in the world to deal with. She obviously has the love of a compassionate son, that's more than a lot of people have going for them right there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's a really bad myth being perpetuated.

You call it a myth. Some economists disagree.

Regardless, it's shitty policy that should have never existed in the first place.

"Let's make loans to people who can't afford them & fail to repay them, with not only government blessing but even encouragement". Yippee.

The more economic shit government stays the hell out of, the better afaic.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

it's about capacity and opportunity. do we have the capacity to create opportunity for everyone? i think we do.

This leave out the cost element of the equation, which tends to land it somewhere between random theory & fantasy.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And I think we do create opportunity for everyone, we just have lots of folks that for one reason or another fail to take advantage. Plenty of folks move up and down the economic chain on a regular basis.

that's an interesting point. i've never heard that before.

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

if you're not happy or well off it's your fault. this is our culture.

relevant article in vanity fair today. link

it’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone.

All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran.

and Troy i don't mean to be a contrarian douche. i agree with you for the most part. i don't want a utopia. i just want a system governed by logic and reason (eh, maybe that is a utopia)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I'm glad someone said this. There were and are a lot of problems perpetuated over the past few years and the CRA isn't the great bogeyman that certain people want to make it out to be, because they don't understand what the legislation was intended to do.

But that line of hooey has been working well for years now.

We all know it's the fault of poor people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

{from the article} For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone.

Naturally.

An excessive supply with a decreasing demand, pretty natural that the value of that is in decline.

A HS diploma is barely worth the paper it's printed on at this point.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This leave out the cost element of the equation, which tends to land it somewhere between random theory & fantasy.

more or less fantastical than discussing the role of appellate judges in a sprawling bureaucracy?

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Naturally.

An excessive supply with a decreasing demand, pretty natural that the value of that is in decline.

A HS diploma is barely worth the paper it's printed on at this point.

then we get into a debate about who's more important to a society. the ceo, the salesman or the ditch digger. i've seen this thread before.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And I think we do create opportunity for everyone, we just have lots of folks that for one reason or another fail to take advantage. Plenty of folks move up and down the economic chain on a regular basis.

But nowhere near as much as in the past. Almost every other industrialized country have higher rates of social mobility.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Naturally.

An excessive supply with a decreasing demand, pretty natural that the value of that is in decline.

A HS diploma is barely worth the paper it's printed on at this point.

To follow up on this, it isn't something we didn't see coming. My father slammed it into me that if I didn't go to college, I would be doing the same things he did. My friends (none of whom were wealthy) had it drilled into their heads as well. Either go to college or get ready for a manual labor job.

Having said that, the job that propelled me into my current career had zero to do with my major and being in college didn't get me the job. My current job uses virtually none of the skills my major had and virtually everyone I work with has a higher education level than I do. (I work with guys who have maters, CPA's, and advanced business degrees.) In todays workforce, you have to adapt, be prepared to put in long hours if you want that promotion, and have the people skills to get you through "crisis" situations. If you don't, you will have major problems getting a job.

I'll be honest here, I'm shocked it's only 12 percent. I would have figured it would be closer to 30%.

All of that said, it's absolutely possible to only have a high school diploma and a successful career. You just have to understand you are behind people at the starting gate. If that's the route you go, you have to work harder, take advantage of every situation that comes up and not get discouraged the first time you get passed over for a promotion. (I was turned down SIX times for the job I currently have.)

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

then we get into a debate about who's more important to a society. the ceo, the salesman or the ditch digger. i've seen this thread before.

No, this isn't a debate about who is more important to society. There are plenty of people who make less than I do who are more important for our future.

This isn't about importance, it's about how much you want to earn in your life. A doctor who performs a surgical procedure on me gets paid more than I do. He's also earned it. He went to school for longer than I did, paid more tuition and carries a greater risk.

There is nothing wrong with being a ditch digger or a truck driver like my father is. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking the ditch digger is going to make the same kind of money as the guy that hired him though. That's fairly silly and naive.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by TroyF

All of that said, it's absolutely possible to only have a high school diploma and a successful career. You just have to understand you are behind people at the starting gate.

Not only are you behind at the starting gate but (to continue the analogy) you also have fewer tracks to run at.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

more or less fantastical than discussing the role of appellate judges in a sprawling bureaucracy?

Hey, I'm not knocking a decent philosophical or rhetorical wandering thought or even discussion. Hope you didn't take my response that way.

I just got the impression you were somehow ... dissatisfied(?) ... by the direction the sub-topic was headed & I meant to offer a thought into why it was going that way.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not only are you behind at the starting gate but (to continue the analogy) you also have fewer tracks to run at.

I don't disagree with you at all there.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But they do sit in judgment of judgments of someone (or something), which is why I'd say you're getting into the grayer area of theory vs de facto.

True. I know other countries have seperate appellate courts for criminal convictions, civil constitutional rights, and civil issues between private parties. I wonder how such a thing would work in a U.S. state, and if it would be advantageous to appoint/elect those judges in three different manners.

[lungs]

You can be Governor of Wisconsin without a college degree.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

True. I know other countries have seperate appellate courts for criminal convictions, civil constitutional rights, and civil issues between private parties. I wonder how such a thing would work in a U.S. state, and if it would be advantageous to appoint/elect those judges in three different manners.

I've always liked the system where the judge is appointed but then subject to election where the choice is to retain or allow a new judge to be appointed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

You can be Governor of Wisconsin without a college degree.

Yeah, and he only makes $137k annually, not exactly setting the world on fire with that pay grade.