- 35,006
- 47,035
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
China is where it's at for the next 20-30 years.
Future jobs wonât support decent living standard
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by mondaynightraw,
- Start date
China is where it's at for the next 20-30 years.
- 549
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2010
+1
Greed has driven the economy/poverty levels/wealth gap to what they are now and greed will only make their effects worse.
- 549
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2010
+1
Greed has driven the economy/poverty levels/wealth gap to what they are now and greed will only make their effects worse.
- 4,366
- 11
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
A used reliable car could be bought for $2000 or less. So, no.
- 4,366
- 11
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
A used reliable car could be bought for $2000 or less. So, no.
- 6,782
- 18
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
You shouldn't be having kids if you can't afford to take care of them.
We should eliminate that problem for starters before all this crazy talk about class equalization.
We should eliminate that problem for starters before all this crazy talk about class equalization.
- 6,782
- 18
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
You shouldn't be having kids if you can't afford to take care of them.
We should eliminate that problem for starters before all this crazy talk about class equalization.
We should eliminate that problem for starters before all this crazy talk about class equalization.
- 180
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2011
the only thing im going into debt is education cause i worked for some summer with my dad in construction and the sun is no joke so i aint trying work there forever. Give me an office job making 70k a year and im not gonna complain at all.
- 180
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2011
the only thing im going into debt is education cause i worked for some summer with my dad in construction and the sun is no joke so i aint trying work there forever. Give me an office job making 70k a year and im not gonna complain at all.
- 2,296
- 106
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
I don't think the females would understand this
you can save money and use it on things you actually need. But there'll always be that other simp, who would pour his life savings into some random broad
It's such an unfair battlefield
you can save money and use it on things you actually need. But there'll always be that other simp, who would pour his life savings into some random broad
It's such an unfair battlefield
- 2,296
- 106
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
I don't think the females would understand this
you can save money and use it on things you actually need. But there'll always be that other simp, who would pour his life savings into some random broad
It's such an unfair battlefield
you can save money and use it on things you actually need. But there'll always be that other simp, who would pour his life savings into some random broad
It's such an unfair battlefield
- 3,937
- 2,069
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
late
- 3,937
- 2,069
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
late
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
we could stop da elimination of these jobs if ya could just control da flow of jobs leaving overseas....
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
we could stop da elimination of these jobs if ya could just control da flow of jobs leaving overseas....
- 3,647
- 17
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
lol,
I have a cousin who is a PhD candidate at an ivy league school in bioinformatics. He said it would be stupid to go anywhere else in the world because the United States has the medical field locked down in terms of jobs and research.
- 3,647
- 17
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
lol,
I have a cousin who is a PhD candidate at an ivy league school in bioinformatics. He said it would be stupid to go anywhere else in the world because the United States has the medical field locked down in terms of jobs and research.
- 6,742
- 16,425
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
It does not have to be this way. The world has more physical capital and with economic growth slowly but surely churning through Eastern and Southern Asia, there is a growing amount of financial capital. The more wealth and income being produced per capita, all things being equal, there should be more money available, at lower interest rates to finance the starting of new firms and the expansion of existing and well run firms.
I think that some of our problems are caused by government intervention in the economy. Taxation, regime uncertainty (not knowing what the law makers or regulatory agencies or courts will cause paralysis for job and wealth creators), subsidies of poorly run firms (they not only cost tax payers in terms of money, they consume scarce resources that would create more wealth and a generally higher standard of living if those same resources were managed by more dynamic firms) and in some cases there are excessive amounts of red tape from various bureaucracies and environmental lawyers. Most importantly is the behavior of the Federal reserve and the complimentary legislation in Congress (such as the mortgage write off on income taxes and the increasing demands that Freddie and Fannie take on subprime loans) that create malinvestment. Malinvestment means that Scarce resources get directed into ventures that could have been producing more wealth, more productivity and better jobs.
In the case of the 2000's, artificially low interest rates and government policy caused too many scarce resources to be invested into housing and by the late 2000's and probably through most of this decade, we will see homes that are unoccupied and because there was a lack of investment in other sectors of the economy, wages and unemployment will stay high. In the 1990's there was over investment in the tech sector and in 2000, that bubble burst and casued a relatively minor but still costly recession, the recession was minor because the boom was less intense than the housing boom, few families invested so much of their household budgets, banks did not put insane amounts of their portfolios in the "dot coms," Congress did not waive capital gains taxes or give tax payers a write off for buying tech stocks.
My prediction is that the next bubble to burst will be higher education/student loans. The damage will be less than the housing bubble but greater than the dot com bubble, there too many students with BA and even MA and JD's, who owe six figures and can barely make five figures, annually, after they gradiate. Like housing, there are governmental and social pressures to incur debt to purchase higher education. The Secretary of education, Arne Duncan, when asked by a CNBC correspondent "is there anyone who should not go to college?" could not even concede that maybe one such young person even exists. I, and other decent economist and/or investor, should be able to see this coming because the market for higher education is, clearly, a bubble right now and government policy is not to draw down and maybe deflate the bubble and avoid a crash, the Obama administration and any future administration/Congress will not want to be seen as limiting access to higher education so they will further subsidize, like government did did with housing, student loans that will be even larger and that will have even lower returns than they do today, just like with housing. Eventually, no amount of subsidizing will push so many people into something with not only a net negative return, but a very large net negative return.
So we can make life better and have better jobs if we stop having policies that create malinvestment. Low interest rates have caused too much money to go into mortages and other very long term investments, worse yet, those interest rates are artificial and unsustainable. If there were no Central Bank and interest rates would accurately reflect the amount of capital in the world (capital is basically all wealth produced, minus all private and public consumption, what remains is investable, extra wealth), the rate would be higher and less money would go into mortgages and more money would go to firms that would buy more capital (things like new tools, equipment, computers and other inputs to production) that would enhance worker productivity and when worker productivity increases wages tend to rise and unemployment decreases. Prices in general and interest rates in particular need to be allowed to float in order to better allow siganls to be sent to people, households, firms and maybe even governments and scarce resources can be more widely invested, used and consumed and that would improve quality of life for ordinary people.
We do live i nworld of increasin geconoic change and that makes in encumbent upon people and governments to give people a chance to have more financial securit yand be able to change career paths and/or augment existing skills. Individuals, who are able to do so, should consider actually saving money, if people in China, who make $3,000 or $4,000 can put away 10% to 20% of their income, Americans who make a multiple of that should be able to put away 10% of their income and have at least a few months living expenses for times when they have to have tehir hours cut or even loss their jobs.
Government can help by providing unemployment benefits and subsidies for job and career training, as they do now. Beyond that the Government should use the very powerful force of taxation and tax exemption to encourage and incentivize private saving (actually it does now but mostly for retirement, it should give similar tax shelter status to people who set up a rainy day fund as it gives to those who save for retirement). There should also be efforts to take away the tax exempt status given to employer provided payments on health insurance premiums for employees (Candidate John McCain wanted that in 2008 and Candidiate Obama opposed it but then made it part of his health care reform legislation, the fact that some people get high end, low deductible insurances means an artificially high demand for health care by some and higher health care costs and very high out of pocket costs for the uninsured and rising premiums for the insured).
The problem with government policy and American society and household budgeting is that almost everything is based on the assumption that some will graduate high school or college and will never be unemployed for more than a few weeks until they retire in their sixties. Households and government policy have assumptions that you will have four decades of no prolonged periods of unemployment, that is foolish. I believe that in a very dynamic and market oriented economy (right now we have a static economy with some sectors highly driven by market forces and some driven mostly by government fiat), the average worker will make more money and have a better standard of living over a life time. A robust and quickly changing, information driven economy will give people richer and fuller lives but there will be fewer jobs that involve large doses of menial and manual labor in exchange for an equal measure of strong job security) but that same person will face longer periods of unemployment in exchange for greater levels of wealth over a lifetime. Long term gain can and does have serious short term costs, they is no avoiding that fact.
In short, while there is no simple solution to economic uncertainty, the best, in terms of policy is two pronged. One is to allow firms and production to be flexible, dynamic and able to get financing for sudden changes that could or potentially could increase productivity and wages. At the same, have a public safety net and use tax policy to encourage households to save for and to respond to the short term setbacks and loses, that are associated with any economy that is not static and stagnant.
I think that some of our problems are caused by government intervention in the economy. Taxation, regime uncertainty (not knowing what the law makers or regulatory agencies or courts will cause paralysis for job and wealth creators), subsidies of poorly run firms (they not only cost tax payers in terms of money, they consume scarce resources that would create more wealth and a generally higher standard of living if those same resources were managed by more dynamic firms) and in some cases there are excessive amounts of red tape from various bureaucracies and environmental lawyers. Most importantly is the behavior of the Federal reserve and the complimentary legislation in Congress (such as the mortgage write off on income taxes and the increasing demands that Freddie and Fannie take on subprime loans) that create malinvestment. Malinvestment means that Scarce resources get directed into ventures that could have been producing more wealth, more productivity and better jobs.
In the case of the 2000's, artificially low interest rates and government policy caused too many scarce resources to be invested into housing and by the late 2000's and probably through most of this decade, we will see homes that are unoccupied and because there was a lack of investment in other sectors of the economy, wages and unemployment will stay high. In the 1990's there was over investment in the tech sector and in 2000, that bubble burst and casued a relatively minor but still costly recession, the recession was minor because the boom was less intense than the housing boom, few families invested so much of their household budgets, banks did not put insane amounts of their portfolios in the "dot coms," Congress did not waive capital gains taxes or give tax payers a write off for buying tech stocks.
My prediction is that the next bubble to burst will be higher education/student loans. The damage will be less than the housing bubble but greater than the dot com bubble, there too many students with BA and even MA and JD's, who owe six figures and can barely make five figures, annually, after they gradiate. Like housing, there are governmental and social pressures to incur debt to purchase higher education. The Secretary of education, Arne Duncan, when asked by a CNBC correspondent "is there anyone who should not go to college?" could not even concede that maybe one such young person even exists. I, and other decent economist and/or investor, should be able to see this coming because the market for higher education is, clearly, a bubble right now and government policy is not to draw down and maybe deflate the bubble and avoid a crash, the Obama administration and any future administration/Congress will not want to be seen as limiting access to higher education so they will further subsidize, like government did did with housing, student loans that will be even larger and that will have even lower returns than they do today, just like with housing. Eventually, no amount of subsidizing will push so many people into something with not only a net negative return, but a very large net negative return.
So we can make life better and have better jobs if we stop having policies that create malinvestment. Low interest rates have caused too much money to go into mortages and other very long term investments, worse yet, those interest rates are artificial and unsustainable. If there were no Central Bank and interest rates would accurately reflect the amount of capital in the world (capital is basically all wealth produced, minus all private and public consumption, what remains is investable, extra wealth), the rate would be higher and less money would go into mortgages and more money would go to firms that would buy more capital (things like new tools, equipment, computers and other inputs to production) that would enhance worker productivity and when worker productivity increases wages tend to rise and unemployment decreases. Prices in general and interest rates in particular need to be allowed to float in order to better allow siganls to be sent to people, households, firms and maybe even governments and scarce resources can be more widely invested, used and consumed and that would improve quality of life for ordinary people.
We do live i nworld of increasin geconoic change and that makes in encumbent upon people and governments to give people a chance to have more financial securit yand be able to change career paths and/or augment existing skills. Individuals, who are able to do so, should consider actually saving money, if people in China, who make $3,000 or $4,000 can put away 10% to 20% of their income, Americans who make a multiple of that should be able to put away 10% of their income and have at least a few months living expenses for times when they have to have tehir hours cut or even loss their jobs.
Government can help by providing unemployment benefits and subsidies for job and career training, as they do now. Beyond that the Government should use the very powerful force of taxation and tax exemption to encourage and incentivize private saving (actually it does now but mostly for retirement, it should give similar tax shelter status to people who set up a rainy day fund as it gives to those who save for retirement). There should also be efforts to take away the tax exempt status given to employer provided payments on health insurance premiums for employees (Candidate John McCain wanted that in 2008 and Candidiate Obama opposed it but then made it part of his health care reform legislation, the fact that some people get high end, low deductible insurances means an artificially high demand for health care by some and higher health care costs and very high out of pocket costs for the uninsured and rising premiums for the insured).
The problem with government policy and American society and household budgeting is that almost everything is based on the assumption that some will graduate high school or college and will never be unemployed for more than a few weeks until they retire in their sixties. Households and government policy have assumptions that you will have four decades of no prolonged periods of unemployment, that is foolish. I believe that in a very dynamic and market oriented economy (right now we have a static economy with some sectors highly driven by market forces and some driven mostly by government fiat), the average worker will make more money and have a better standard of living over a life time. A robust and quickly changing, information driven economy will give people richer and fuller lives but there will be fewer jobs that involve large doses of menial and manual labor in exchange for an equal measure of strong job security) but that same person will face longer periods of unemployment in exchange for greater levels of wealth over a lifetime. Long term gain can and does have serious short term costs, they is no avoiding that fact.
In short, while there is no simple solution to economic uncertainty, the best, in terms of policy is two pronged. One is to allow firms and production to be flexible, dynamic and able to get financing for sudden changes that could or potentially could increase productivity and wages. At the same, have a public safety net and use tax policy to encourage households to save for and to respond to the short term setbacks and loses, that are associated with any economy that is not static and stagnant.
- 6,742
- 16,425
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
It does not have to be this way. The world has more physical capital and with economic growth slowly but surely churning through Eastern and Southern Asia, there is a growing amount of financial capital. The more wealth and income being produced per capita, all things being equal, there should be more money available, at lower interest rates to finance the starting of new firms and the expansion of existing and well run firms.
I think that some of our problems are caused by government intervention in the economy. Taxation, regime uncertainty (not knowing what the law makers or regulatory agencies or courts will cause paralysis for job and wealth creators), subsidies of poorly run firms (they not only cost tax payers in terms of money, they consume scarce resources that would create more wealth and a generally higher standard of living if those same resources were managed by more dynamic firms) and in some cases there are excessive amounts of red tape from various bureaucracies and environmental lawyers. Most importantly is the behavior of the Federal reserve and the complimentary legislation in Congress (such as the mortgage write off on income taxes and the increasing demands that Freddie and Fannie take on subprime loans) that create malinvestment. Malinvestment means that Scarce resources get directed into ventures that could have been producing more wealth, more productivity and better jobs.
In the case of the 2000's, artificially low interest rates and government policy caused too many scarce resources to be invested into housing and by the late 2000's and probably through most of this decade, we will see homes that are unoccupied and because there was a lack of investment in other sectors of the economy, wages and unemployment will stay high. In the 1990's there was over investment in the tech sector and in 2000, that bubble burst and casued a relatively minor but still costly recession, the recession was minor because the boom was less intense than the housing boom, few families invested so much of their household budgets, banks did not put insane amounts of their portfolios in the "dot coms," Congress did not waive capital gains taxes or give tax payers a write off for buying tech stocks.
My prediction is that the next bubble to burst will be higher education/student loans. The damage will be less than the housing bubble but greater than the dot com bubble, there too many students with BA and even MA and JD's, who owe six figures and can barely make five figures, annually, after they gradiate. Like housing, there are governmental and social pressures to incur debt to purchase higher education. The Secretary of education, Arne Duncan, when asked by a CNBC correspondent "is there anyone who should not go to college?" could not even concede that maybe one such young person even exists. I, and other decent economist and/or investor, should be able to see this coming because the market for higher education is, clearly, a bubble right now and government policy is not to draw down and maybe deflate the bubble and avoid a crash, the Obama administration and any future administration/Congress will not want to be seen as limiting access to higher education so they will further subsidize, like government did did with housing, student loans that will be even larger and that will have even lower returns than they do today, just like with housing. Eventually, no amount of subsidizing will push so many people into something with not only a net negative return, but a very large net negative return.
So we can make life better and have better jobs if we stop having policies that create malinvestment. Low interest rates have caused too much money to go into mortages and other very long term investments, worse yet, those interest rates are artificial and unsustainable. If there were no Central Bank and interest rates would accurately reflect the amount of capital in the world (capital is basically all wealth produced, minus all private and public consumption, what remains is investable, extra wealth), the rate would be higher and less money would go into mortgages and more money would go to firms that would buy more capital (things like new tools, equipment, computers and other inputs to production) that would enhance worker productivity and when worker productivity increases wages tend to rise and unemployment decreases. Prices in general and interest rates in particular need to be allowed to float in order to better allow siganls to be sent to people, households, firms and maybe even governments and scarce resources can be more widely invested, used and consumed and that would improve quality of life for ordinary people.
We do live i nworld of increasin geconoic change and that makes in encumbent upon people and governments to give people a chance to have more financial securit yand be able to change career paths and/or augment existing skills. Individuals, who are able to do so, should consider actually saving money, if people in China, who make $3,000 or $4,000 can put away 10% to 20% of their income, Americans who make a multiple of that should be able to put away 10% of their income and have at least a few months living expenses for times when they have to have tehir hours cut or even loss their jobs.
Government can help by providing unemployment benefits and subsidies for job and career training, as they do now. Beyond that the Government should use the very powerful force of taxation and tax exemption to encourage and incentivize private saving (actually it does now but mostly for retirement, it should give similar tax shelter status to people who set up a rainy day fund as it gives to those who save for retirement). There should also be efforts to take away the tax exempt status given to employer provided payments on health insurance premiums for employees (Candidate John McCain wanted that in 2008 and Candidiate Obama opposed it but then made it part of his health care reform legislation, the fact that some people get high end, low deductible insurances means an artificially high demand for health care by some and higher health care costs and very high out of pocket costs for the uninsured and rising premiums for the insured).
The problem with government policy and American society and household budgeting is that almost everything is based on the assumption that some will graduate high school or college and will never be unemployed for more than a few weeks until they retire in their sixties. Households and government policy have assumptions that you will have four decades of no prolonged periods of unemployment, that is foolish. I believe that in a very dynamic and market oriented economy (right now we have a static economy with some sectors highly driven by market forces and some driven mostly by government fiat), the average worker will make more money and have a better standard of living over a life time. A robust and quickly changing, information driven economy will give people richer and fuller lives but there will be fewer jobs that involve large doses of menial and manual labor in exchange for an equal measure of strong job security) but that same person will face longer periods of unemployment in exchange for greater levels of wealth over a lifetime. Long term gain can and does have serious short term costs, they is no avoiding that fact.
In short, while there is no simple solution to economic uncertainty, the best, in terms of policy is two pronged. One is to allow firms and production to be flexible, dynamic and able to get financing for sudden changes that could or potentially could increase productivity and wages. At the same, have a public safety net and use tax policy to encourage households to save for and to respond to the short term setbacks and loses, that are associated with any economy that is not static and stagnant.
I think that some of our problems are caused by government intervention in the economy. Taxation, regime uncertainty (not knowing what the law makers or regulatory agencies or courts will cause paralysis for job and wealth creators), subsidies of poorly run firms (they not only cost tax payers in terms of money, they consume scarce resources that would create more wealth and a generally higher standard of living if those same resources were managed by more dynamic firms) and in some cases there are excessive amounts of red tape from various bureaucracies and environmental lawyers. Most importantly is the behavior of the Federal reserve and the complimentary legislation in Congress (such as the mortgage write off on income taxes and the increasing demands that Freddie and Fannie take on subprime loans) that create malinvestment. Malinvestment means that Scarce resources get directed into ventures that could have been producing more wealth, more productivity and better jobs.
In the case of the 2000's, artificially low interest rates and government policy caused too many scarce resources to be invested into housing and by the late 2000's and probably through most of this decade, we will see homes that are unoccupied and because there was a lack of investment in other sectors of the economy, wages and unemployment will stay high. In the 1990's there was over investment in the tech sector and in 2000, that bubble burst and casued a relatively minor but still costly recession, the recession was minor because the boom was less intense than the housing boom, few families invested so much of their household budgets, banks did not put insane amounts of their portfolios in the "dot coms," Congress did not waive capital gains taxes or give tax payers a write off for buying tech stocks.
My prediction is that the next bubble to burst will be higher education/student loans. The damage will be less than the housing bubble but greater than the dot com bubble, there too many students with BA and even MA and JD's, who owe six figures and can barely make five figures, annually, after they gradiate. Like housing, there are governmental and social pressures to incur debt to purchase higher education. The Secretary of education, Arne Duncan, when asked by a CNBC correspondent "is there anyone who should not go to college?" could not even concede that maybe one such young person even exists. I, and other decent economist and/or investor, should be able to see this coming because the market for higher education is, clearly, a bubble right now and government policy is not to draw down and maybe deflate the bubble and avoid a crash, the Obama administration and any future administration/Congress will not want to be seen as limiting access to higher education so they will further subsidize, like government did did with housing, student loans that will be even larger and that will have even lower returns than they do today, just like with housing. Eventually, no amount of subsidizing will push so many people into something with not only a net negative return, but a very large net negative return.
So we can make life better and have better jobs if we stop having policies that create malinvestment. Low interest rates have caused too much money to go into mortages and other very long term investments, worse yet, those interest rates are artificial and unsustainable. If there were no Central Bank and interest rates would accurately reflect the amount of capital in the world (capital is basically all wealth produced, minus all private and public consumption, what remains is investable, extra wealth), the rate would be higher and less money would go into mortgages and more money would go to firms that would buy more capital (things like new tools, equipment, computers and other inputs to production) that would enhance worker productivity and when worker productivity increases wages tend to rise and unemployment decreases. Prices in general and interest rates in particular need to be allowed to float in order to better allow siganls to be sent to people, households, firms and maybe even governments and scarce resources can be more widely invested, used and consumed and that would improve quality of life for ordinary people.
We do live i nworld of increasin geconoic change and that makes in encumbent upon people and governments to give people a chance to have more financial securit yand be able to change career paths and/or augment existing skills. Individuals, who are able to do so, should consider actually saving money, if people in China, who make $3,000 or $4,000 can put away 10% to 20% of their income, Americans who make a multiple of that should be able to put away 10% of their income and have at least a few months living expenses for times when they have to have tehir hours cut or even loss their jobs.
Government can help by providing unemployment benefits and subsidies for job and career training, as they do now. Beyond that the Government should use the very powerful force of taxation and tax exemption to encourage and incentivize private saving (actually it does now but mostly for retirement, it should give similar tax shelter status to people who set up a rainy day fund as it gives to those who save for retirement). There should also be efforts to take away the tax exempt status given to employer provided payments on health insurance premiums for employees (Candidate John McCain wanted that in 2008 and Candidiate Obama opposed it but then made it part of his health care reform legislation, the fact that some people get high end, low deductible insurances means an artificially high demand for health care by some and higher health care costs and very high out of pocket costs for the uninsured and rising premiums for the insured).
The problem with government policy and American society and household budgeting is that almost everything is based on the assumption that some will graduate high school or college and will never be unemployed for more than a few weeks until they retire in their sixties. Households and government policy have assumptions that you will have four decades of no prolonged periods of unemployment, that is foolish. I believe that in a very dynamic and market oriented economy (right now we have a static economy with some sectors highly driven by market forces and some driven mostly by government fiat), the average worker will make more money and have a better standard of living over a life time. A robust and quickly changing, information driven economy will give people richer and fuller lives but there will be fewer jobs that involve large doses of menial and manual labor in exchange for an equal measure of strong job security) but that same person will face longer periods of unemployment in exchange for greater levels of wealth over a lifetime. Long term gain can and does have serious short term costs, they is no avoiding that fact.
In short, while there is no simple solution to economic uncertainty, the best, in terms of policy is two pronged. One is to allow firms and production to be flexible, dynamic and able to get financing for sudden changes that could or potentially could increase productivity and wages. At the same, have a public safety net and use tax policy to encourage households to save for and to respond to the short term setbacks and loses, that are associated with any economy that is not static and stagnant.
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
What's a "decent" living standard?
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
What's a "decent" living standard?
- 159,837
- 141,129
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
Right. A car isn't worth being in debt for.
I say education and probably owning a house are. I mean I don't really care about owning a house but we have trained to consider that part of the American dream. If I am by myself forever and never get married, I could see myself apartmenting forever.
- 159,837
- 141,129
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
Right. A car isn't worth being in debt for.
I say education and probably owning a house are. I mean I don't really care about owning a house but we have trained to consider that part of the American dream. If I am by myself forever and never get married, I could see myself apartmenting forever.
- 13,656
- 1,083
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- 13,656
- 1,083
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
Similar threads
