US economy thread (3 Viewers)

[Gatorman]

Crazy how kids 19 months apart can be SO different. Our oldest son is going to graduate on time with two majors and an econ minor for good measure. Fluent in Spanish and I think he's made one B total in 3+ years. He'll have some student loan debt, but he also has enough saved in a brokerage account and a CD to pay it all off at once if he wants to (and I'm telling him not to for similar reasons to you, plus he should let his investments grow and chop the debt down at his pace). Has held a job the entire time he's been in college and could work for UO after he graduates if he wants.

So, on one hand, I've got this over-achieving child who makes me feel like the best father in the world and on the other, I've got Chazz Rheinhold living in my basement using up all our bandwidth on Xbox games.

I know which one is just like his dad..

 

[General Malaise]

Crazy how kids 19 months apart can be SO different. Our oldest son is going to graduate on time with two majors and an econ minor for good measure. Fluent in Spanish and I think he's made one B total in 3+ years. He'll have some student loan debt, but he also has enough saved in a brokerage account and a CD to pay it all off at once if he wants to (and I'm telling him not to for similar reasons to you, plus he should let his investments grow and chop the debt down at his pace). Has held a job the entire time he's been in college and could work for UO after he graduates if he wants.

So, on one hand, I've got this over-achieving child who makes me feel like the best father in the world and on the other, I've got Chazz Rheinhold living in my basement using up all our bandwidth on Xbox games.

I know which one is just like his dad..

 

[beer 30]

One of the more low-key lessons that I've learned over the past few years is that people get a lot more upset about inflation (and, relatedly, higher interest rates) than I would have guessed. I was a kid at the time, but folks must have been incandescently pissed through much of the 1970s and early 80s. I understand now on a psychological level why the Fed is so willing to accept some extra unemployment if that's what it takes to keep inflation in the 2-3% range.

So true, people HATE inflation. I can't find it now, but there was a survey result going around a few months ago where most people said something like a 2% increase in inflation was worse than a 2% increase in unemployment. So paying a few extra pennies for your Little Debbie Nutty Buddy at the Piddly Widdly or your 128 oz Mtn. Dew Baja Blast at 7-11 is worse than hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs. Got it.

Replace Nutty Buddy with gasoline. Nothing seems to get people more upset than seeing gas go up.

We don't pay enough for gas.

And when we buy prescription medicine we're buying one in the UK, three in India, and another couple in Japan. We subsidize the world.

I don't feel guilty paying for cheap gas - we make it up elsewhere.

The damage we do using carbon emitting fuel is a global problem that impacts generations to come. I don't think inefficient price distribution of prescription drugs is equivalent.

We should also pay a lot more for everything plastic, ideally we should look to eliminate use of plastics to the greatest extent possible.

Totally agree on the plastic thing. The carbon thing is irrelevant unless we get countries like China to match our efforts.

You need to pay attention more to the advances they are making. China realizes the world will run out of gas. We just build bigger SUVs and ***** a ev can't go 300 miles.

I’m not just focused on cars. Industrial carbon usage matters too.

They are winning there also.

Don’t believe everything you hear about China. I have indirect and direct contacts there (through business relationships)—and a lot of their being “ahead” of us is nothing more than government controlled propaganda. The CCP control everything from the media to the internet there. The reason why they sell so many EV’s there is because of developers “scamming the government” through fake sales and due to failures in their infrastructure (the vast majority of China’s cities have massive drainage issues) and anytime they get a moderate rain—they experience bad flooding which destroys lots of vehicles. The CCP will create programs to where EV manufacturers might get what is equivalent to a $3-4k check from the government for every EV they sell—so the developers come up with ways to make a crap EV that costs them less than $3-4k—-doctor up a bunch of fake sales—-and the cars just sit idle in fields all around the country. Similar types of scams happened with bikes for ride sharing—and the country had mountains of bikes just rotting away all over the place. The groundwater is so bad in China that 90% of it is unusable—not “undrinkable”. Literally—it is so toxic that even its use for industrial uses is questionable. I have contacts in tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 cities—and they all tell me that things are really bad over there. I have a couple contacts in Shanghai that tell me that the malls and the business oriented parts of the city are turning into ghost towns. Keep in mind—I’m not anti-China—- (I admit that I’m certainly not a fan of the CCP government)—as I’d love to see a world where everybody is doing well and improving—but the notion that they are “ahead” in some of the stuff you mention is nothing more than narrative driven by propaganda. The CCP is paying influencers to create controlled content glorifying their infrastructure—but what you don’t see is that a lot of their infrastructure is a facade. Brand new roads and highways there are collapsing randomly, buildings randomly toppling over, fake drainage grates, tofu dreg construction. The reason why they are pumping out so much propaganda is because their economy is so dependent on foreign investment. They have to make it look like they are above and beyond to entice people to park their money there. Their consumer driven economy has all but halted as the Ponzi scheme that was their real estate market all but collapsed recently.

I watched a documentary about those fields of unused Ev and mountains of bicycles crazy

I have a friend who travels to China all the time and he has said for years that it’s all lies and that they are a house of cards. Massive poverty and the majority of people outside the cities are destitute and living on and off the land.

China is a paper tiger. If you listen to Peter Zeihan at all, he's pretty much made a living off of this train of thought. I can't say whether he's right or not in regards to population trends in China but assuming he is, they are in for a massive restructuring in the next decade. Basically they ran out of women thanks to the one child per family policy. That creates a pretty large problem that spending & building can't fix. We'll see but even if he's off base, China is still in a difficult spot having propped up their economy for so many years on government subsidies. Something drastic will happen there in the next 10 years, whether it's their gradual decline as a player on the world stage, a internal economic collapse, invading Taiwan...something.

As for kids and college debt, I have two, both out of school, both with about the same amount of debt, both militant about paying it down but more than willing to get bailed out by the government One used her funds well but "enjoyed" herself some while in college. She can't manage her funds to save her life but she's doing better now that we have helped her develop a budget. The younger one (5 years apart) is ridiculously frugal with her money and saves every penny she can. She used her loan the first year she was in school, realized she didn't need it after that so never borrowed any more.

 

[-OZ-]

Mortgage rates in 1990 were 10.4%. It was not easier back then for people in their mid-20s to buy a home.

This is misleading. PITI is a much better metric

Do you think it was "easier" for a person in their mid-20s to buy a home in 1990? I don't.

College was cheaper. That's going to be a factor. School debt and car debt is going to keep 20s out of homes for a bit.

There's probably something to this. Neither my wife nor I had any student load debt when we graduated. Neither did most people we knew. Student loans existed, of course, but it seemed pretty uncommon to encounter anybody with substantial college debt unless they were a cardiologist or something. My wife and I made it a priority for our own kids to graduate debt-free, and I'm surprised at the number of people in their peer group graduating with debt even though their families could have easily afforded otherwise.

For example, my son's girlfriend (who he can propose to any day now, but that's a separate conversation for another time) has about $50K in student loans stemming from her graduate degree in occupational therapy. Now, obviously, she is going to be just fine. It's not like she took out this debt for a master's degree in gender studies or something -- she'll have no problem recouping this. But I've met her family, and they're loaded. They're taking their kids and SOs (including my son) to Europe for a family trip later this year. That's nice and everything, but don't you think getting your own children off to a debt-free start is a little more important than galavanting around a dying continent? I'll admit to being very judgey about parents who get their kids set up for success but just choose not to do so.

I hear you on parents who won't help out their kids to the extent they're able, but there is a flip side to this as well.

I'm a believer that there's value in kids having some skin in the game when it comes to their own education. My son did me the favor of choosing to stay in-state for his educations, and it's going to save me massive amounts of money. Still, I'm having him take the gov't subsidized loans nonetheless...(5,500 fresh year, 6,500 soph, etc). He'll come out with 28k in debt. We may help him with that after graduation, we may not, but it's valuable I think for him to have some ownership in what's being paid. For my daughter, who decided to go out of state, we're paying much more of course, but she'll exit with the same $28k in debt. We've already told her she of course can live at home for as long as she wants rent free, but we expect her to aggressively pay off these loans while she does so.

Sounds reasonable to me. I can see where this sort of thing might be helpful just to make sure that your kids fully understand how expensive this is and what a serious undertaking it is. As you note, you can pay off those loans for them after graduation if you're so inclined.

Not sure why I feel compelled to post this here, but I've shared in other threads that my second son was asked NOT to come back for his junior year at our state university due to what some might call a failure to attend classes and/or maintain a GPA above 2.0. Did fine his freshman year, his soph year? I don't think he did anything more than attend sporting events and become ultimate "Frat Guy" last year.

Now, this kid also took out some student loans and we paid the balance, including his living expenses. But here's a really important and expensive lesson that he (and we) learned the hard way. When you fail to maintain the minimum GPA for a semester after being placed on Academic Probation, the loans AND grants you received get kicked back and that money is payable to the university. Due in full now or interest begins accumulating. Whoops.

Anyhow, I told him "buddy, this one is on you. We agreed to help you as long as you made your grades. So this nut is yours to cover and if it takes you 2-3 years, so be it." He agreed, but it's going to be a while before he's getting this monkey off his back. But if I paid this off for him, I don't think he learns anything. And my wife would divorce me if I did, so......yeah. Not doing another one of those.

I have fears about my son going down a similar road. Bright kid, but he's not his sister. He doesn't live for grades. If he parties too much, he comes home and starts paying down this early debt. You're doing the right thing by him in the long run.

I went down this path myself, did well early on but then stopped regularly going to class, partyed too much, etc. So my parents rightfully cut me off early in my Junior year after paying up to that point. I took out loans, kept messing around in school, got (horrrible) jobs, and went to Alaska to work two summers. While it took 2 1/2 more years to finish my final year it was all on me to figure out and I finally got back on track. It taught me a lot.

I've talked to my parents about it since, and what a hard decision it was for them to cut me loose. And I always end up thanking them for doing so.

FWIW, I lost my scholarship my freshman year. Parents weren’t going to pay more. They didn’t cut me loose but I had to figure out how to pay, I hadn’t even considered leaving as an option.
That led to an ROTC scholarship, a career, a paid for law degree, a nice pension, money for our kids college…
No doubt saying no and natural consequences can be tough but the best thing long term.

 

[beer 30]

Ha, relevant. The gram must have been listening to me typing.

 

[stbugs]

Mortgage rates in 1990 were 10.4%. It was not easier back then for people in their mid-20s to buy a home.

This is misleading. PITI is a much better metric

Do you think it was "easier" for a person in their mid-20s to buy a home in 1990? I don't.

College was cheaper. That's going to be a factor. School debt and car debt is going to keep 20s out of homes for a bit.

There's probably something to this. Neither my wife nor I had any student load debt when we graduated. Neither did most people we knew. Student loans existed, of course, but it seemed pretty uncommon to encounter anybody with substantial college debt unless they were a cardiologist or something. My wife and I made it a priority for our own kids to graduate debt-free, and I'm surprised at the number of people in their peer group graduating with debt even though their families could have easily afforded otherwise.

For example, my son's girlfriend (who he can propose to any day now, but that's a separate conversation for another time) has about $50K in student loans stemming from her graduate degree in occupational therapy. Now, obviously, she is going to be just fine. It's not like she took out this debt for a master's degree in gender studies or something -- she'll have no problem recouping this. But I've met her family, and they're loaded. They're taking their kids and SOs (including my son) to Europe for a family trip later this year. That's nice and everything, but don't you think getting your own children off to a debt-free start is a little more important than galavanting around a dying continent? I'll admit to being very judgey about parents who get their kids set up for success but just choose not to do so.

I hear you on parents who won't help out their kids to the extent they're able, but there is a flip side to this as well.

I'm a believer that there's value in kids having some skin in the game when it comes to their own education. My son did me the favor of choosing to stay in-state for his educations, and it's going to save me massive amounts of money. Still, I'm having him take the gov't subsidized loans nonetheless...(5,500 fresh year, 6,500 soph, etc). He'll come out with 28k in debt. We may help him with that after graduation, we may not, but it's valuable I think for him to have some ownership in what's being paid. For my daughter, who decided to go out of state, we're paying much more of course, but she'll exit with the same $28k in debt. We've already told her she of course can live at home for as long as she wants rent free, but we expect her to aggressively pay off these loans while she does so.

I’ll be honest that I don’t get it. Your daughter chose the more expensive school and has the same debt? My oldest went out of state but had a nice scholarship. It was still more than in state so he took out the same minimum loans. He’s been out a year and he’s paying the $200 a month plus some extra now. My middle son started his sophomore year in state and I told him when he was deciding that if he went in state he’d graduate with no loans. I haven’t even filled out FAFSA for him the past two years. Even with the loans and scholarship, I still paid more for my oldest so I have no problem only having him take out loans and not my middle son. My oldest understands and didn’t have a problem with it because he knows we paid more.

If my youngest goes in state, I plan to not do loans for him as well. He’s a bit more of an academic so I’m hoping he gets some scholarships like his older brother but he’s pretty frugal already so I think he wants to go in state anyway and there are a couple really good ones. Hoping he gets in to his favorite.

I don't really view it as what's fair between them. He chose to stay in state because he loved the program which was offered. He had every opportunity to spend as much of our money as my daughter is spending, he simply chose not to do so. Now, with that said, it is possible we might cover more of his debt on the other end of this than we do for our daughter because he did use our resources to a lesser extent. We're holding back on those decisions until much later because frankly, we can. No reason to make the decision now.

NO matter where they had chosen to go though my wife and I agreed it's smart to make them take a bit of debt for the reasons stated above 'skin in the game'. It's no different than making them old jobs...it's good for their character. Going to work and having a boss and sacrificing some of their free time is about far more than the little paycheck they get out of it. Similarly, holding a bit of gov't-subsidized debt for a few years could potentially help them grow-up financially.

I get the skin in the game and we made all 3 boys worked during high school. We gave my middle (and youngest) the option of graduating debt free by going in state. I’d feel a little unfair if we didn’t give an incentive to in state. Compared to say a Duke or Wake Forest, my middle son’s in state NC 4 year cost is a little more than 1 year cost. I guess to me, skin in the game also encompasses the cost. My middle son is having a great time and loves his choice, but he knew if he lowered my cost then we lowered his cost.

I think as long as you’ve spent the time going over finances and they’ve worked in high school and summers, they’ll be good. If they are wanting to invest money rather than spend it, I feel like we did a good job.

 

[stbugs]

Credit card balances are a measure of consumer spending – including for expensive business trips that are reimbursed. They’re not a measure of borrowing because most balances are paid off by due date and never accrue interest, but allow cardholders to get their 1% or 2% cashback, airmiles, and other loyalty benefits. Credit cards are the dominant payment method used by consumers in the US, ahead of debit cards, and far ahead of other payment methods, such as checks or cash.

This is an interesting angle, that would seem likely to skew the data and that I hadn't considered. Although I wonder how much of an impact it really has - despite the crowds in every Centurion Lounge I've been in over the past few months, most Americans aren't traveling for business regularly. And despite my Facebook feed since I've gotten into the points/miles game the past several months (does everyone fly first class on Emirates? I sure never have!), how many people are really trying to maximize cc spend?

Either way, more support for the thinking that delinquencies, collections, % of credit used would be much more useful metrics to judge the state of consumer debt than the total amount of it. I'm curious how much the metric I've tended to focus on, % of disposable income, gets skewed by the above.

It is anecdotal, obviously, but I charge every expense possible to my Amazon Visa card. All gas, groceries, restaurants, shopping, monthly bills, healthcare copayments, home supplies, etc. I pay the balance in full every month and get about $1K in cash back every year. I would expect this to be common behavior for most people who can afford to pay in full every month. I would expect it significantly skews the data.

fwiw, amazon visa isn't bad, but there are better options if going straight cash back.

Yeah. My Amazon Visa is for my 5%+ back and that’s it. Like my Target debit card, 5% off. I think I am going to get Fidelity’s 2% back. I use my Costco card for almost everything but I should use something else when it’s only getting 1%.

 

[Battersbox]

Mortgage rates in 1990 were 10.4%. It was not easier back then for people in their mid-20s to buy a home.

This is misleading. PITI is a much better metric

Do you think it was "easier" for a person in their mid-20s to buy a home in 1990? I don't.

College was cheaper. That's going to be a factor. School debt and car debt is going to keep 20s out of homes for a bit.

There's probably something to this. Neither my wife nor I had any student load debt when we graduated. Neither did most people we knew. Student loans existed, of course, but it seemed pretty uncommon to encounter anybody with substantial college debt unless they were a cardiologist or something. My wife and I made it a priority for our own kids to graduate debt-free, and I'm surprised at the number of people in their peer group graduating with debt even though their families could have easily afforded otherwise.

For example, my son's girlfriend (who he can propose to any day now, but that's a separate conversation for another time) has about $50K in student loans stemming from her graduate degree in occupational therapy. Now, obviously, she is going to be just fine. It's not like she took out this debt for a master's degree in gender studies or something -- she'll have no problem recouping this. But I've met her family, and they're loaded. They're taking their kids and SOs (including my son) to Europe for a family trip later this year. That's nice and everything, but don't you think getting your own children off to a debt-free start is a little more important than galavanting around a dying continent? I'll admit to being very judgey about parents who get their kids set up for success but just choose not to do so.

I hear you on parents who won't help out their kids to the extent they're able, but there is a flip side to this as well.

I'm a believer that there's value in kids having some skin in the game when it comes to their own education. My son did me the favor of choosing to stay in-state for his educations, and it's going to save me massive amounts of money. Still, I'm having him take the gov't subsidized loans nonetheless...(5,500 fresh year, 6,500 soph, etc). He'll come out with 28k in debt. We may help him with that after graduation, we may not, but it's valuable I think for him to have some ownership in what's being paid. For my daughter, who decided to go out of state, we're paying much more of course, but she'll exit with the same $28k in debt. We've already told her she of course can live at home for as long as she wants rent free, but we expect her to aggressively pay off these loans while she does so.

I’ll be honest that I don’t get it. Your daughter chose the more expensive school and has the same debt? My oldest went out of state but had a nice scholarship. It was still more than in state so he took out the same minimum loans. He’s been out a year and he’s paying the $200 a month plus some extra now. My middle son started his sophomore year in state and I told him when he was deciding that if he went in state he’d graduate with no loans. I haven’t even filled out FAFSA for him the past two years. Even with the loans and scholarship, I still paid more for my oldest so I have no problem only having him take out loans and not my middle son. My oldest understands and didn’t have a problem with it because he knows we paid more.

If my youngest goes in state, I plan to not do loans for him as well. He’s a bit more of an academic so I’m hoping he gets some scholarships like his older brother but he’s pretty frugal already so I think he wants to go in state anyway and there are a couple really good ones. Hoping he gets in to his favorite.

I don't really view it as what's fair between them. He chose to stay in state because he loved the program which was offered. He had every opportunity to spend as much of our money as my daughter is spending, he simply chose not to do so. Now, with that said, it is possible we might cover more of his debt on the other end of this than we do for our daughter because he did use our resources to a lesser extent. We're holding back on those decisions until much later because frankly, we can. No reason to make the decision now.

NO matter where they had chosen to go though my wife and I agreed it's smart to make them take a bit of debt for the reasons stated above 'skin in the game'. It's no different than making them old jobs...it's good for their character. Going to work and having a boss and sacrificing some of their free time is about far more than the little paycheck they get out of it. Similarly, holding a bit of gov't-subsidized debt for a few years could potentially help them grow-up financially.

I get the skin in the game and we made all 3 boys worked during high school. We gave my middle (and youngest) the option of graduating debt free by going in state. I’d feel a little unfair if we didn’t give an incentive to in state. Compared to say a Duke or Wake Forest, my middle son’s in state NC 4 year cost is a little more than 1 year cost. I guess to me, skin in the game also encompasses the cost. My middle son is having a great time and loves his choice, but he knew if he lowered my cost then we lowered his cost.

I think as long as you’ve spent the time going over finances and they’ve worked in high school and summers, they’ll be good. If they are wanting to invest money rather than spend it, I feel like we did a good job.

That's certainly fair. Had we incentivized staying in state we'd certainly honor it, but it was simply what he chose to do, regardless of cost. If his particular program had been offered only at a more expensive out of state school, we were prepared to send him. We look at it as both kids got to go where they wanted to study what they wanted to study. If one costs more or less than the other, so be it.

Addtionally: If one kid decides to have a wedding someday, and the other doesn't, we wouldn't feel obligated to spend on the non-marrying one to 'even it out'. I can see where others might want to do that but we really don't see it that way.

 

[stbugs]

One of the more low-key lessons that I've learned over the past few years is that people get a lot more upset about inflation (and, relatedly, higher interest rates) than I would have guessed. I was a kid at the time, but folks must have been incandescently pissed through much of the 1970s and early 80s. I understand now on a psychological level why the Fed is so willing to accept some extra unemployment if that's what it takes to keep inflation in the 2-3% range.

So true, people HATE inflation. I can't find it now, but there was a survey result going around a few months ago where most people said something like a 2% increase in inflation was worse than a 2% increase in unemployment. So paying a few extra pennies for your Little Debbie Nutty Buddy at the Piddly Widdly or your 128 oz Mtn. Dew Baja Blast at 7-11 is worse than hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs. Got it.

Replace Nutty Buddy with gasoline. Nothing seems to get people more upset than seeing gas go up.

We don't pay enough for gas.

And when we buy prescription medicine we're buying one in the UK, three in India, and another couple in Japan. We subsidize the world.

I don't feel guilty paying for cheap gas - we make it up elsewhere.

The damage we do using carbon emitting fuel is a global problem that impacts generations to come. I don't think inefficient price distribution of prescription drugs is equivalent.

We should also pay a lot more for everything plastic, ideally we should look to eliminate use of plastics to the greatest extent possible.

Totally agree on the plastic thing. The carbon thing is irrelevant unless we get countries like China to match our efforts.

You need to pay attention more to the advances they are making. China realizes the world will run out of gas. We just build bigger SUVs and ***** a ev can't go 300 miles.

I’m not just focused on cars. Industrial carbon usage matters too.

They are winning there also.

Don’t believe everything you hear about China. I have indirect and direct contacts there (through business relationships)—and a lot of their being “ahead” of us is nothing more than government controlled propaganda. The CCP control everything from the media to the internet there. The reason why they sell so many EV’s there is because of developers “scamming the government” through fake sales and due to failures in their infrastructure (the vast majority of China’s cities have massive drainage issues) and anytime they get a moderate rain—they experience bad flooding which destroys lots of vehicles. The CCP will create programs to where EV manufacturers might get what is equivalent to a $3-4k check from the government for every EV they sell—so the developers come up with ways to make a crap EV that costs them less than $3-4k—-doctor up a bunch of fake sales—-and the cars just sit idle in fields all around the country. Similar types of scams happened with bikes for ride sharing—and the country had mountains of bikes just rotting away all over the place. The groundwater is so bad in China that 90% of it is unusable—not “undrinkable”. Literally—it is so toxic that even its use for industrial uses is questionable. I have contacts in tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 cities—and they all tell me that things are really bad over there. I have a couple contacts in Shanghai that tell me that the malls and the business oriented parts of the city are turning into ghost towns. Keep in mind—I’m not anti-China—- (I admit that I’m certainly not a fan of the CCP government)—as I’d love to see a world where everybody is doing well and improving—but the notion that they are “ahead” in some of the stuff you mention is nothing more than narrative driven by propaganda. The CCP is paying influencers to create controlled content glorifying their infrastructure—but what you don’t see is that a lot of their infrastructure is a facade. Brand new roads and highways there are collapsing randomly, buildings randomly toppling over, fake drainage grates, tofu dreg construction. The reason why they are pumping out so much propaganda is because their economy is so dependent on foreign investment. They have to make it look like they are above and beyond to entice people to park their money there. Their consumer driven economy has all but halted as the Ponzi scheme that was their real estate market all but collapsed recently.

I watched a documentary about those fields of unused Ev and mountains of bicycles crazy

I have a friend who travels to China all the time and he has said for years that it’s all lies and that they are a house of cards. Massive poverty and the majority of people outside the cities are destitute and living on and off the land.

China is a paper tiger. If you listen to Peter Zeihan at all, he's pretty much made a living off of this train of thought. I can't say whether he's right or not in regards to population trends in China but assuming he is, they are in for a massive restructuring in the next decade. Basically they ran out of women thanks to the one child per family policy. That creates a pretty large problem that spending & building can't fix. We'll see but even if he's off base, China is still in a difficult spot having propped up their economy for so many years on government subsidies. Something drastic will happen there in the next 10 years, whether it's their gradual decline as a player on the world stage, a internal economic collapse, invading Taiwan...something.

As for kids and college debt, I have two, both out of school, both with about the same amount of debt, both militant about paying it down but more than willing to get bailed out by the government One used her funds well but "enjoyed" herself some while in college. She can't manage her funds to save her life but she's doing better now that we have helped her develop a budget. The younger one (5 years apart) is ridiculously frugal with her money and saves every penny she can. She used her loan the first year she was in school, realized she didn't need it after that so never borrowed any more.

Budgets are huge. My oldest was probably the least frugal in HS/college but when he graduated last year and started working for real, we did a full budget with taxes and rent/other bills. He really stuck with it and saved a ton in 1 year including Roth 401k to get full match. He got one raise and one promotion with another raise and just bought his first car. He helped out my FIL when he lived with us during his last couple years fighting cancer so his papa gave him his old CRV when he couldn’t drive. I was proud of my son for figuring out the costs and realizing his second raise covered the car payments after his down payment and it’s a car he plans to pay off and drive for 10 years. He still orders an occasional DoorDash and uses my wife’s Uber but we let it slide knowing he’s making sure he and his friends are safe.

Spending a lot of time talking through the budget and making sure he started investing early really paid off.

 

[stbugs]

Mortgage rates in 1990 were 10.4%. It was not easier back then for people in their mid-20s to buy a home.

This is misleading. PITI is a much better metric

Do you think it was "easier" for a person in their mid-20s to buy a home in 1990? I don't.

College was cheaper. That's going to be a factor. School debt and car debt is going to keep 20s out of homes for a bit.

There's probably something to this. Neither my wife nor I had any student load debt when we graduated. Neither did most people we knew. Student loans existed, of course, but it seemed pretty uncommon to encounter anybody with substantial college debt unless they were a cardiologist or something. My wife and I made it a priority for our own kids to graduate debt-free, and I'm surprised at the number of people in their peer group graduating with debt even though their families could have easily afforded otherwise.

For example, my son's girlfriend (who he can propose to any day now, but that's a separate conversation for another time) has about $50K in student loans stemming from her graduate degree in occupational therapy. Now, obviously, she is going to be just fine. It's not like she took out this debt for a master's degree in gender studies or something -- she'll have no problem recouping this. But I've met her family, and they're loaded. They're taking their kids and SOs (including my son) to Europe for a family trip later this year. That's nice and everything, but don't you think getting your own children off to a debt-free start is a little more important than galavanting around a dying continent? I'll admit to being very judgey about parents who get their kids set up for success but just choose not to do so.

I hear you on parents who won't help out their kids to the extent they're able, but there is a flip side to this as well.

I'm a believer that there's value in kids having some skin in the game when it comes to their own education. My son did me the favor of choosing to stay in-state for his educations, and it's going to save me massive amounts of money. Still, I'm having him take the gov't subsidized loans nonetheless...(5,500 fresh year, 6,500 soph, etc). He'll come out with 28k in debt. We may help him with that after graduation, we may not, but it's valuable I think for him to have some ownership in what's being paid. For my daughter, who decided to go out of state, we're paying much more of course, but she'll exit with the same $28k in debt. We've already told her she of course can live at home for as long as she wants rent free, but we expect her to aggressively pay off these loans while she does so.

I’ll be honest that I don’t get it. Your daughter chose the more expensive school and has the same debt? My oldest went out of state but had a nice scholarship. It was still more than in state so he took out the same minimum loans. He’s been out a year and he’s paying the $200 a month plus some extra now. My middle son started his sophomore year in state and I told him when he was deciding that if he went in state he’d graduate with no loans. I haven’t even filled out FAFSA for him the past two years. Even with the loans and scholarship, I still paid more for my oldest so I have no problem only having him take out loans and not my middle son. My oldest understands and didn’t have a problem with it because he knows we paid more.

If my youngest goes in state, I plan to not do loans for him as well. He’s a bit more of an academic so I’m hoping he gets some scholarships like his older brother but he’s pretty frugal already so I think he wants to go in state anyway and there are a couple really good ones. Hoping he gets in to his favorite.

I don't really view it as what's fair between them. He chose to stay in state because he loved the program which was offered. He had every opportunity to spend as much of our money as my daughter is spending, he simply chose not to do so. Now, with that said, it is possible we might cover more of his debt on the other end of this than we do for our daughter because he did use our resources to a lesser extent. We're holding back on those decisions until much later because frankly, we can. No reason to make the decision now.

NO matter where they had chosen to go though my wife and I agreed it's smart to make them take a bit of debt for the reasons stated above 'skin in the game'. It's no different than making them old jobs...it's good for their character. Going to work and having a boss and sacrificing some of their free time is about far more than the little paycheck they get out of it. Similarly, holding a bit of gov't-subsidized debt for a few years could potentially help them grow-up financially.

I get the skin in the game and we made all 3 boys worked during high school. We gave my middle (and youngest) the option of graduating debt free by going in state. I’d feel a little unfair if we didn’t give an incentive to in state. Compared to say a Duke or Wake Forest, my middle son’s in state NC 4 year cost is a little more than 1 year cost. I guess to me, skin in the game also encompasses the cost. My middle son is having a great time and loves his choice, but he knew if he lowered my cost then we lowered his cost.

I think as long as you’ve spent the time going over finances and they’ve worked in high school and summers, they’ll be good. If they are wanting to invest money rather than spend it, I feel like we did a good job.

That's certainly fair. Had we incentivized staying in state we'd certainly honor it, but it was simply what he chose to do, regardless of cost. If his particular program had been offered only at a more expensive out of state school, we were prepared to send him. We look at it as both kids got to go where they wanted to study what they wanted to study. If one costs more or less than the other, so be it.

Addtionally: If one kid decides to have a wedding someday, and the other doesn't, we wouldn't feel obligated to spend on the non-marrying one to 'even it out'. I can see where others might want to do that but we really don't see it that way.

Totally understand and that was the incentive part of it. Technically, we still paid 50% more for the one who took the loans so it wasn’t really even. In my mind what was fair was giving the boys who chose a much cheaper option an incentive.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Credit card balances are a measure of consumer spending – including for expensive business trips that are reimbursed. They’re not a measure of borrowing because most balances are paid off by due date and never accrue interest, but allow cardholders to get their 1% or 2% cashback, airmiles, and other loyalty benefits. Credit cards are the dominant payment method used by consumers in the US, ahead of debit cards, and far ahead of other payment methods, such as checks or cash.

This is an interesting angle, that would seem likely to skew the data and that I hadn't considered. Although I wonder how much of an impact it really has - despite the crowds in every Centurion Lounge I've been in over the past few months, most Americans aren't traveling for business regularly. And despite my Facebook feed since I've gotten into the points/miles game the past several months (does everyone fly first class on Emirates? I sure never have!), how many people are really trying to maximize cc spend?

Either way, more support for the thinking that delinquencies, collections, % of credit used would be much more useful metrics to judge the state of consumer debt than the total amount of it. I'm curious how much the metric I've tended to focus on, % of disposable income, gets skewed by the above.

It is anecdotal, obviously, but I charge every expense possible to my Amazon Visa card. All gas, groceries, restaurants, shopping, monthly bills, healthcare copayments, home supplies, etc. I pay the balance in full every month and get about $1K in cash back every year. I would expect this to be common behavior for most people who can afford to pay in full every month. I would expect it significantly skews the data.

fwiw, amazon visa isn't bad, but there are better options if going straight cash back.

Yeah. My Amazon Visa is for my 5%+ back and that’s it. Like my Target debit card, 5% off. I think I am going to get Fidelity’s 2% back. I use my Costco card for almost everything but I should use something else when it’s only getting 1%.

My heavy recommendation for a 2% card is the Amex Blue Business plus.

Yes it's a business card but you can make up any sole proprietorship (selling stuff on ebay, etc) and qualify easily enough.

It's 2% back on everything, no annual fee. But the thing I like is that it's 2% paid out in membership rewards points, which are easily worth more than cash.

 

[-OZ-]

Sort of an oddball question but hopefully y’all have some ideas.

We have 5 kids, and 36 months of the post 911 GI Bill to give among the oldest 4 (daughter wasn’t with us when I retired from the Army so ineligible). The oldest is attending community college so not using it with him. Son 2 has a scholarship so not using it for him unless he goes to graduate school and needs it then. Son 3 is a junior but we think he’ll follow son 2 with a scholarship to the local university and won’t need it. So that leaves Son 4, currently in 8th grade and not academically ambitious. Currently he wants to be a flight attendant . That leaves us 36 months / 4 school years to figure what to do with. The kids also have about $40k each in coverdell ESAs. Not 529, but I could transfer the funds in if we think getting them into their Roth IRAs would be the best move. Daughter only has $5k right now, largely because we can just roll the funds from her brothers to her.
I could use a year or two to get my CFP or LLM in estate planning but that’s only a fallback.
Just trying to figure out the best use of the post 911 GI Bill without giving son 4 college away without working for it.

 

[Orange&Blue]

Sort of an oddball question but hopefully y’all have some ideas.

We have 5 kids, and 36 months of the post 911 GI Bill to give among the oldest 4 (daughter wasn’t with us when I retired from the Army so ineligible). The oldest is attending community college so not using it with him. Son 2 has a scholarship so not using it for him unless he goes to graduate school and needs it then. Son 3 is a junior but we think he’ll follow son 2 with a scholarship to the local university and won’t need it. So that leaves Son 4, currently in 8th grade and not academically ambitious. Currently he wants to be a flight attendant . That leaves us 36 months / 4 school years to figure what to do with. The kids also have about $40k each in coverdell ESAs. Not 529, but I could transfer the funds in if we think getting them into their Roth IRAs would be the best move. Daughter only has $5k right now, largely because we can just roll the funds from her brothers to her.
I could use a year or two to get my CFP or LLM in estate planning but that’s only a fallback.
Just trying to figure out the best use of the post 911 GI Bill without giving son 4 college away without working for it.

don't limit it to just tuition. fees, supplies (say a new computer for kids) and housing can also be covered for all 3 kids.

 

[Sand]

Currently he wants to be a flight attendant .

International travel, hot stewardesses to hang with. I think this kid has it figured out.

 

[-OZ-]

Currently he wants to be a flight attendant .

International travel, hot stewardesses to hang with. I think this kid has it figured out.

I told my wife I’d join him.

 

[-OZ-]

Sort of an oddball question but hopefully y’all have some ideas.

We have 5 kids, and 36 months of the post 911 GI Bill to give among the oldest 4 (daughter wasn’t with us when I retired from the Army so ineligible). The oldest is attending community college so not using it with him. Son 2 has a scholarship so not using it for him unless he goes to graduate school and needs it then. Son 3 is a junior but we think he’ll follow son 2 with a scholarship to the local university and won’t need it. So that leaves Son 4, currently in 8th grade and not academically ambitious. Currently he wants to be a flight attendant . That leaves us 36 months / 4 school years to figure what to do with. The kids also have about $40k each in coverdell ESAs. Not 529, but I could transfer the funds in if we think getting them into their Roth IRAs would be the best move. Daughter only has $5k right now, largely because we can just roll the funds from her brothers to her.
I could use a year or two to get my CFP or LLM in estate planning but that’s only a fallback.
Just trying to figure out the best use of the post 911 GI Bill without giving son 4 college away without working for it.

don't limit it to just tuition. fees, supplies (say a new computer for kids) and housing can also be covered for all 3 kids.

Kids 1 and 2 live at home while in college. 3 probably will too.

 

[Tau837]

Credit card balances are a measure of consumer spending – including for expensive business trips that are reimbursed. They’re not a measure of borrowing because most balances are paid off by due date and never accrue interest, but allow cardholders to get their 1% or 2% cashback, airmiles, and other loyalty benefits. Credit cards are the dominant payment method used by consumers in the US, ahead of debit cards, and far ahead of other payment methods, such as checks or cash.

This is an interesting angle, that would seem likely to skew the data and that I hadn't considered. Although I wonder how much of an impact it really has - despite the crowds in every Centurion Lounge I've been in over the past few months, most Americans aren't traveling for business regularly. And despite my Facebook feed since I've gotten into the points/miles game the past several months (does everyone fly first class on Emirates? I sure never have!), how many people are really trying to maximize cc spend?

Either way, more support for the thinking that delinquencies, collections, % of credit used would be much more useful metrics to judge the state of consumer debt than the total amount of it. I'm curious how much the metric I've tended to focus on, % of disposable income, gets skewed by the above.

It is anecdotal, obviously, but I charge every expense possible to my Amazon Visa card. All gas, groceries, restaurants, shopping, monthly bills, healthcare copayments, home supplies, etc. I pay the balance in full every month and get about $1K in cash back every year. I would expect this to be common behavior for most people who can afford to pay in full every month. I would expect it significantly skews the data.

fwiw, amazon visa isn't bad, but there are better options if going straight cash back.

I am aware it isn't the best deal, but we do get a lot from Amazon, which is a minor factor. The biggest factor is complacency. I have a disabled wife and a demanding job, so my free time is limited, and I haven't gotten around to spending some of it to examine pros/cons of alternatives.

 

[Tau837]

Credit card balances are a measure of consumer spending – including for expensive business trips that are reimbursed. They’re not a measure of borrowing because most balances are paid off by due date and never accrue interest, but allow cardholders to get their 1% or 2% cashback, airmiles, and other loyalty benefits. Credit cards are the dominant payment method used by consumers in the US, ahead of debit cards, and far ahead of other payment methods, such as checks or cash.

This is an interesting angle, that would seem likely to skew the data and that I hadn't considered. Although I wonder how much of an impact it really has - despite the crowds in every Centurion Lounge I've been in over the past few months, most Americans aren't traveling for business regularly. And despite my Facebook feed since I've gotten into the points/miles game the past several months (does everyone fly first class on Emirates? I sure never have!), how many people are really trying to maximize cc spend?

Either way, more support for the thinking that delinquencies, collections, % of credit used would be much more useful metrics to judge the state of consumer debt than the total amount of it. I'm curious how much the metric I've tended to focus on, % of disposable income, gets skewed by the above.

It is anecdotal, obviously, but I charge every expense possible to my Amazon Visa card. All gas, groceries, restaurants, shopping, monthly bills, healthcare copayments, home supplies, etc. I pay the balance in full every month and get about $1K in cash back every year. I would expect this to be common behavior for most people who can afford to pay in full every month. I would expect it significantly skews the data.

fwiw, amazon visa isn't bad, but there are better options if going straight cash back.

Open a brokerage account at Fidelity and get their 2% cashback card - redeems straight into the account. Or the Citi double cash card.

I actually looked into the Fidelity card a couple years ago because I have accounts with Fidelity and thus was getting emails about it. I went online and researched it, and there was a lot of negativity out there about it. Haven't looked into Citi.

 

[Instinctive]

For a similar yet not the same perspective, I'll share what my parents did for me and my brother.

We were told we each had a $100k budget and could keep anything unspent, and anything else was on us. I therefore chose a full ride at OU over a couple more expensive private schools and had a lot leftover after being a little bit on the fancy side (for a college student) with my living expenses. I rolled it right into grad school.

My brother ended up at OU but not with the same scholarship. Ended up at like $135k total COA.

My parents covered all of it, and trued me up to the total. I ended up still owing ~$150k in debt post grad school (all paid off by 6 years out)...my brother graduated debt free and moved to my parents' basement for like 3 years before finally joining the military.

I think there's value to the skin in the game argument, and as a parent now myself, I also see how you want to make things easy for them and have to thread the needle. I also wonder if my brother would have been better served with some debt and a little more pressure to do something with his engineering degree beyond an hourly warehouse job for years...or if he would have collapsed under the pressure and be in a much worse place now.

So I have a hard time thinking there's a best answer, but there's probably a best answer for each kid!

Don't really have a point just thought I'd share since some of y'all did.

 

[culdeus]

What the bloody hell did I do to get 20 notifications from this thread today

 

[MAC_32]

A WSJ article from this morning that may be of interest to the discussion here:

Boomers Buying Houses Had It Bad in the ’80s. Millennials Have It Worse.

The link above should be a gift link that provides free access to those without a subscription.

Thanks for sharing, but it's more than just housing prices and mortgage rates. Been banging the table on it for more than a decade. Inflation has been hammering young adults for years, if you want a family anyway. It just finally caught up to everyone else post covid.

 

[-OZ-]

Latest economic data cools recession worries

Thursday's retail sales report comes as markets are increasingly focused on data amid growing concerns about the health of the US economy.

finance.yahoo.com

Retail sales surpassed Wall Street's estimates in July, helping ease concerns of a significant slowdown in the US economy.

Retail sales rose 1% in July. Economists had expected a 0.4% increase in spending, according to Bloomberg data. Meanwhile, retail sales in June were revised lower to a 0.2% decline, from a prior reading that showed sales were flat from the month, according to Census Bureau data.

Motor vehicle and parts dealers led the gains by category, rising 3.6%, while electronic and appliance store sales popped 1.6%.

 

[-OZ-]

So I have a hard time thinking there's a best answer, but there's probably a best answer for each kid!

the challenge is figuring that out.
It doesn’t get easier despite more experience.

 

[stbugs]

Latest economic data cools recession worries

Thursday's retail sales report comes as markets are increasingly focused on data amid growing concerns about the health of the US economy.

finance.yahoo.com

Retail sales surpassed Wall Street's estimates in July, helping ease concerns of a significant slowdown in the US economy.

Retail sales rose 1% in July. Economists had expected a 0.4% increase in spending, according to Bloomberg data. Meanwhile, retail sales in June were revised lower to a 0.2% decline, from a prior reading that showed sales were flat from the month, according to Census Bureau data.

Motor vehicle and parts dealers led the gains by category, rising 3.6%, while electronic and appliance store sales popped 1.6%.

It’s funny how you can read that as positive, which it was, but it’s interesting that auto parts was such a big gain. Does that mean that more people are deciding to fix their cars versus buy a new/new to you cars or that some of the parts shortages got resolved because I recall hearing anecdotes that many parts were still hard to get.

 

[Sand]

Latest economic data cools recession worries

Thursday's retail sales report comes as markets are increasingly focused on data amid growing concerns about the health of the US economy.

finance.yahoo.com

Retail sales surpassed Wall Street's estimates in July, helping ease concerns of a significant slowdown in the US economy.

Retail sales rose 1% in July. Economists had expected a 0.4% increase in spending, according to Bloomberg data. Meanwhile, retail sales in June were revised lower to a 0.2% decline, from a prior reading that showed sales were flat from the month, according to Census Bureau data.

Motor vehicle and parts dealers led the gains by category, rising 3.6%, while electronic and appliance store sales popped 1.6%.

It’s funny how you can read that as positive, which it was, but it’s interesting that auto parts was such a big gain. Does that mean that more people are deciding to fix their cars versus buy a new/new to you cars or that some of the parts shortages got resolved because I recall hearing anecdotes that many parts were still hard to get.

This report is pretty damn sketchy. The only reason it looks so good is that the previous month(s) have been revised down. I expect this to continue through November, then we'll get a nasty correction to these numbers back to reality.

It's a nice short term jolt for now, though. In general mildly bullish on stocks, definitely bearish on bonds.

 

[Peggy]

One of the more low-key lessons that I've learned over the past few years is that people get a lot more upset about inflation (and, relatedly, higher interest rates) than I would have guessed. I was a kid at the time, but folks must have been incandescently pissed through much of the 1970s and early 80s. I understand now on a psychological level why the Fed is so willing to accept some extra unemployment if that's what it takes to keep inflation in the 2-3% range.

So true, people HATE inflation. I can't find it now, but there was a survey result going around a few months ago where most people said something like a 2% increase in inflation was worse than a 2% increase in unemployment. So paying a few extra pennies for your Little Debbie Nutty Buddy at the Piddly Widdly or your 128 oz Mtn. Dew Baja Blast at 7-11 is worse than hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs. Got it.

Replace Nutty Buddy with gasoline. Nothing seems to get people more upset than seeing gas go up.

We don't pay enough for gas.

And when we buy prescription medicine we're buying one in the UK, three in India, and another couple in Japan. We subsidize the world.

I don't feel guilty paying for cheap gas - we make it up elsewhere.

The damage we do using carbon emitting fuel is a global problem that impacts generations to come. I don't think inefficient price distribution of prescription drugs is equivalent.

We should also pay a lot more for everything plastic, ideally we should look to eliminate use of plastics to the greatest extent possible.

Totally agree on the plastic thing. The carbon thing is irrelevant unless we get countries like China to match our efforts.

You need to pay attention more to the advances they are making. China realizes the world will run out of gas. We just build bigger SUVs and ***** a ev can't go 300 miles.

I’m not just focused on cars. Industrial carbon usage matters too.

A little late to this discussion, but, Alex is 100% right here. Just a single metric to illustrate the point: the US could go to 70% electric vehicles tomorrow and that would only offset the carbon output from China's cement production alone. Cement. Forget that they are the leaders in production of plastics, refrigeration, electronics, you name whatever product you think is destroying the climate.

China is clearly in charge of changing the course, or not, of climate change by a long shot. It doesn't matter what the US does.

 

[Chadstroma]

One of the more low-key lessons that I've learned over the past few years is that people get a lot more upset about inflation (and, relatedly, higher interest rates) than I would have guessed. I was a kid at the time, but folks must have been incandescently pissed through much of the 1970s and early 80s. I understand now on a psychological level why the Fed is so willing to accept some extra unemployment if that's what it takes to keep inflation in the 2-3% range.

So true, people HATE inflation. I can't find it now, but there was a survey result going around a few months ago where most people said something like a 2% increase in inflation was worse than a 2% increase in unemployment. So paying a few extra pennies for your Little Debbie Nutty Buddy at the Piddly Widdly or your 128 oz Mtn. Dew Baja Blast at 7-11 is worse than hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs. Got it.

Replace Nutty Buddy with gasoline. Nothing seems to get people more upset than seeing gas go up.

We don't pay enough for gas.

And when we buy prescription medicine we're buying one in the UK, three in India, and another couple in Japan. We subsidize the world.

I don't feel guilty paying for cheap gas - we make it up elsewhere.

The damage we do using carbon emitting fuel is a global problem that impacts generations to come. I don't think inefficient price distribution of prescription drugs is equivalent.

We should also pay a lot more for everything plastic, ideally we should look to eliminate use of plastics to the greatest extent possible.

Totally agree on the plastic thing. The carbon thing is irrelevant unless we get countries like China to match our efforts.

You need to pay attention more to the advances they are making. China realizes the world will run out of gas. We just build bigger SUVs and ***** a ev can't go 300 miles.

I’m not just focused on cars. Industrial carbon usage matters too.

A little late to this discussion, but, Alex is 100% right here. Just a single metric to illustrate the point: the US could go to 70% electric vehicles tomorrow and that would only offset the carbon output from China's cement production alone. Cement. Forget that they are the leaders in production of plastics, refrigeration, electronics, you name whatever product you think is destroying the climate.

China is clearly in charge of changing the course, or not, of climate change by a long shot. It doesn't matter what the US does.

The push for EV is more about making people feel better about themselves than actually solving any environmental, economic, or energy issues. The only way for it to make any sense is a large number of nuclear power plants to be built to handle the energy needs but then people start to feel bad about themselves again. "Renewable" energy just isn't anywhere near what it needs to be to take on a massive move from gas to electric vehicles and it won't be.

 

[SFBayDuck]

x.com

x.com

The last 5 US recession start & end dates:

July 1990 - March 1991

March 2001 - November 2001

December 2007 - June 2009

February 2020 - April 2020

August 5, 2024 - August 6, 2024

 

[General Malaise]

Well, I think at least some EV buyers did so to move away from buying gas every week/2 weeks. Right?

 

[Peggy]

One of the more low-key lessons that I've learned over the past few years is that people get a lot more upset about inflation (and, relatedly, higher interest rates) than I would have guessed. I was a kid at the time, but folks must have been incandescently pissed through much of the 1970s and early 80s. I understand now on a psychological level why the Fed is so willing to accept some extra unemployment if that's what it takes to keep inflation in the 2-3% range.

So true, people HATE inflation. I can't find it now, but there was a survey result going around a few months ago where most people said something like a 2% increase in inflation was worse than a 2% increase in unemployment. So paying a few extra pennies for your Little Debbie Nutty Buddy at the Piddly Widdly or your 128 oz Mtn. Dew Baja Blast at 7-11 is worse than hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs. Got it.

Replace Nutty Buddy with gasoline. Nothing seems to get people more upset than seeing gas go up.

We don't pay enough for gas.

And when we buy prescription medicine we're buying one in the UK, three in India, and another couple in Japan. We subsidize the world.

I don't feel guilty paying for cheap gas - we make it up elsewhere.

The damage we do using carbon emitting fuel is a global problem that impacts generations to come. I don't think inefficient price distribution of prescription drugs is equivalent.

We should also pay a lot more for everything plastic, ideally we should look to eliminate use of plastics to the greatest extent possible.

Totally agree on the plastic thing. The carbon thing is irrelevant unless we get countries like China to match our efforts.

You need to pay attention more to the advances they are making. China realizes the world will run out of gas. We just build bigger SUVs and ***** a ev can't go 300 miles.

I’m not just focused on cars. Industrial carbon usage matters too.

A little late to this discussion, but, Alex is 100% right here. Just a single metric to illustrate the point: the US could go to 70% electric vehicles tomorrow and that would only offset the carbon output from China's cement production alone. Cement. Forget that they are the leaders in production of plastics, refrigeration, electronics, you name whatever product you think is destroying the climate.

China is clearly in charge of changing the course, or not, of climate change by a long shot. It doesn't matter what the US does.

The push for EV is more about making people feel better about themselves than actually solving any environmental, economic, or energy issues. The only way for it to make any sense is a large number of nuclear power plants to be built to handle the energy needs but then people start to feel bad about themselves again. "Renewable" energy just isn't anywhere near what it needs to be to take on a massive move from gas to electric vehicles and it won't be.

Right, those numbers are in magic land where our electricity is 100% renewable, not 60% dependent on fossil fuels, 43% natural gas, 16% coal etc. etc.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

One of the more low-key lessons that I've learned over the past few years is that people get a lot more upset about inflation (and, relatedly, higher interest rates) than I would have guessed. I was a kid at the time, but folks must have been incandescently pissed through much of the 1970s and early 80s. I understand now on a psychological level why the Fed is so willing to accept some extra unemployment if that's what it takes to keep inflation in the 2-3% range.

So true, people HATE inflation. I can't find it now, but there was a survey result going around a few months ago where most people said something like a 2% increase in inflation was worse than a 2% increase in unemployment. So paying a few extra pennies for your Little Debbie Nutty Buddy at the Piddly Widdly or your 128 oz Mtn. Dew Baja Blast at 7-11 is worse than hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs. Got it.

Replace Nutty Buddy with gasoline. Nothing seems to get people more upset than seeing gas go up.

We don't pay enough for gas.

And when we buy prescription medicine we're buying one in the UK, three in India, and another couple in Japan. We subsidize the world.

I don't feel guilty paying for cheap gas - we make it up elsewhere.

The damage we do using carbon emitting fuel is a global problem that impacts generations to come. I don't think inefficient price distribution of prescription drugs is equivalent.

We should also pay a lot more for everything plastic, ideally we should look to eliminate use of plastics to the greatest extent possible.

Totally agree on the plastic thing. The carbon thing is irrelevant unless we get countries like China to match our efforts.

You need to pay attention more to the advances they are making. China realizes the world will run out of gas. We just build bigger SUVs and ***** a ev can't go 300 miles.

I’m not just focused on cars. Industrial carbon usage matters too.

A little late to this discussion, but, Alex is 100% right here. Just a single metric to illustrate the point: the US could go to 70% electric vehicles tomorrow and that would only offset the carbon output from China's cement production alone. Cement. Forget that they are the leaders in production of plastics, refrigeration, electronics, you name whatever product you think is destroying the climate.

China is clearly in charge of changing the course, or not, of climate change by a long shot. It doesn't matter what the US does.

The push for EV is more about making people feel better about themselves than actually solving any environmental, economic, or energy issues. The only way for it to make any sense is a large number of nuclear power plants to be built to handle the energy needs but then people start to feel bad about themselves again. "Renewable" energy just isn't anywhere near what it needs to be to take on a massive move from gas to electric vehicles and it won't be.

We should be building nuclear plants regardless, though.

 

[Nugget]

Well, I think at least some EV buyers did so to move away from buying gas every week/2 weeks. Right?

I don't see a scenario where I don't have at least one EV in my household going forward. I'm saving around $200 month net.

 

[dgreen]

Well, I think at least some EV buyers did so to move away from buying gas every week/2 weeks. Right?

I don't see a scenario where I don't have at least one EV in my household going forward. I'm saving around $200 month net.

Is it true that insurance is a lot more on EVs?

 

[Chadstroma]

Well, I think at least some EV buyers did so to move away from buying gas every week/2 weeks. Right?

I don't see a scenario where I don't have at least one EV in my household going forward. I'm saving around $200 month net.

Is it true that insurance is a lot more on EVs?

What about the cost of replacing the batteries once they end their life expectancy? I heard that was extremely expensive

 

[General Malaise]

One of the more low-key lessons that I've learned over the past few years is that people get a lot more upset about inflation (and, relatedly, higher interest rates) than I would have guessed. I was a kid at the time, but folks must have been incandescently pissed through much of the 1970s and early 80s. I understand now on a psychological level why the Fed is so willing to accept some extra unemployment if that's what it takes to keep inflation in the 2-3% range.

So true, people HATE inflation. I can't find it now, but there was a survey result going around a few months ago where most people said something like a 2% increase in inflation was worse than a 2% increase in unemployment. So paying a few extra pennies for your Little Debbie Nutty Buddy at the Piddly Widdly or your 128 oz Mtn. Dew Baja Blast at 7-11 is worse than hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs. Got it.

Replace Nutty Buddy with gasoline. Nothing seems to get people more upset than seeing gas go up.

We don't pay enough for gas.

And when we buy prescription medicine we're buying one in the UK, three in India, and another couple in Japan. We subsidize the world.

I don't feel guilty paying for cheap gas - we make it up elsewhere.

The damage we do using carbon emitting fuel is a global problem that impacts generations to come. I don't think inefficient price distribution of prescription drugs is equivalent.

We should also pay a lot more for everything plastic, ideally we should look to eliminate use of plastics to the greatest extent possible.

Totally agree on the plastic thing. The carbon thing is irrelevant unless we get countries like China to match our efforts.

You need to pay attention more to the advances they are making. China realizes the world will run out of gas. We just build bigger SUVs and ***** a ev can't go 300 miles.

I’m not just focused on cars. Industrial carbon usage matters too.

A little late to this discussion, but, Alex is 100% right here. Just a single metric to illustrate the point: the US could go to 70% electric vehicles tomorrow and that would only offset the carbon output from China's cement production alone. Cement. Forget that they are the leaders in production of plastics, refrigeration, electronics, you name whatever product you think is destroying the climate.

China is clearly in charge of changing the course, or not, of climate change by a long shot. It doesn't matter what the US does.

The push for EV is more about making people feel better about themselves than actually solving any environmental, economic, or energy issues. The only way for it to make any sense is a large number of nuclear power plants to be built to handle the energy needs but then people start to feel bad about themselves again. "Renewable" energy just isn't anywhere near what it needs to be to take on a massive move from gas to electric vehicles and it won't be.

We should be building nuclear plants regardless, though.

We absolutely should and I think we are - one just opened in Georgia (first new one since 2016) - just not as quickly as other countries.

And Bill Gates is building a brand new one in Wyoming: https://energycommunities.gov/terrapower-nuclear-plant/

 

[General Malaise]

Well, I think at least some EV buyers did so to move away from buying gas every week/2 weeks. Right?

I don't see a scenario where I don't have at least one EV in my household going forward. I'm saving around $200 month net.

Is it true that insurance is a lot more on EVs?

What about the cost of replacing the batteries once they end their life expectancy? I heard that was extremely expensive

Very expensive. Also, they wear out on tires faster than ICE cars due to the weight of the battery. There's pros and cons for sure.

 

[dgreen]

Well, I think at least some EV buyers did so to move away from buying gas every week/2 weeks. Right?

I don't see a scenario where I don't have at least one EV in my household going forward. I'm saving around $200 month net.

Is it true that insurance is a lot more on EVs?

What about the cost of replacing the batteries once they end their life expectancy? I heard that was extremely expensive

Yeah, but what is the life expectancy? Do most of them last long enough to make this concern irrelevant? Or, I wonder if it is reasonable to assume innovation will work towards lowering their prices over time. So, maybe buying one today and needing to replace the battery in 10 years isn’t a big deal because they’ll be cheaper then.

 

[Capella]

I believe the economy may be really good right now

 

[dgreen]

Well, I think at least some EV buyers did so to move away from buying gas every week/2 weeks. Right?

I don't see a scenario where I don't have at least one EV in my household going forward. I'm saving around $200 month net.

Is it true that insurance is a lot more on EVs?

What about the cost of replacing the batteries once they end their life expectancy? I heard that was extremely expensive

Very expensive. Also, they wear out on tires faster than ICE cars due to the weight of the battery. There's pros and cons for sure.

Interesting. Same with hybrids? I’m noticing the tires on my accord hybrid wearing really fast.

 

[General Malaise]

Well, I think at least some EV buyers did so to move away from buying gas every week/2 weeks. Right?

I don't see a scenario where I don't have at least one EV in my household going forward. I'm saving around $200 month net.

Is it true that insurance is a lot more on EVs?

What about the cost of replacing the batteries once they end their life expectancy? I heard that was extremely expensive

Yeah, but what is the life expectancy? Do most of them last long enough to make this concern irrelevant? Or, I wonder if it is reasonable to assume innovation will work towards lowering their prices over time. So, maybe buying one today and needing to replace the battery in 10 years isn’t a big deal because they’ll be cheaper then.

Lifespan is 10-20 years, but depends on the driver's charging habits. If you run the battery from 100% to 0 and from 0 to 100% you can put strain the battery. I know TSLA will tell drivers to avoid running it all the way down and to set a 'full charge' to like 80%. Least, that's what the guys I work with say/do and they drive EVs. Boss traded in his TSLA for the Porsche and think he still caps his charging capacity at 80%.

 

[Psychopav]

Well, I think at least some EV buyers did so to move away from buying gas every week/2 weeks. Right?

I don't see a scenario where I don't have at least one EV in my household going forward. I'm saving around $200 month net.

Is it true that insurance is a lot more on EVs?

What about the cost of replacing the batteries once they end their life expectancy? I heard that was extremely expensive

Yeah, but what is the life expectancy? Do most of them last long enough to make this concern irrelevant? Or, I wonder if it is reasonable to assume innovation will work towards lowering their prices over time. So, maybe buying one today and needing to replace the battery in 10 years isn’t a big deal because they’ll be cheaper then.

It appears they last plenty long. 10 to 20 years, according to this article.

 

[Nugget]

Well, I think at least some EV buyers did so to move away from buying gas every week/2 weeks. Right?

I don't see a scenario where I don't have at least one EV in my household going forward. I'm saving around $200 month net.

Is it true that insurance is a lot more on EVs?

My Lightning insurance was cheaper than my Bronco insurance. Nothing is cheap with a 20 year old driver.

 

[the moops]

Well, I think at least some EV buyers did so to move away from buying gas every week/2 weeks. Right?

I don't see a scenario where I don't have at least one EV in my household going forward. I'm saving around $200 month net.

Is it true that insurance is a lot more on EVs?

My insurance didn’t change when i went from a hybrid camry to a chevy bolt

 

[HomerSimpson]

Well, I think at least some EV buyers did so to move away from buying gas every week/2 weeks. Right?

I don't see a scenario where I don't have at least one EV in my household going forward. I'm saving around $200 month net.

Is it true that insurance is a lot more on EVs?

Not sure, if it is or isn't, but if it is, It's because Insurance companies will look for any reason to raise rates on anything, then find any reason to not pay out when you have a claim.

 

[Nugget]

Well, I think at least some EV buyers did so to move away from buying gas every week/2 weeks. Right?

I don't see a scenario where I don't have at least one EV in my household going forward. I'm saving around $200 month net.

Is it true that insurance is a lot more on EVs?

What about the cost of replacing the batteries once they end their life expectancy? I heard that was extremely expensive

I can't see a scenario where I keep an EV out of warranty.

 

[beer 30]

We absolutely should and I think we are - one just opened in Georgia (first new one since 2016) - just not as quickly as other countries.

Just isolating on this comment since I actually know something about since my company rented them a ton of equipment over the years. The latest reactor that just came on line you are talking about at Plant Voglte stats are below. This started in 2006, 18 years later they are wrapping up with serious cost & time overruns. The US litigates these things to death and while I want the safest, most efficient nuclear power plants in the world, we won't ever be able to build these things in the future unless some serious changes occur.

• Project approved in 2006
• Construction started in 2013
• Units 3 & 4 originally planned to become operational in 2016 & 2017 (respectively)
• Construction delays pushed operational dates to 2019 & 2020
• Project cost: $14 billion

With Plant Voglte as a backdrop, next door in South Carolina, we have Nukegate. Very similar timeline but costs almost tripled before the companies just walked away and stuck me (and 5 million of my closest friends in SC) with the ****ing bill. That project in GA I bolded below? Plant Vogtle above.

In 2008, the utilities contracted with Westinghouse to build two AP1000 nuclear reactors for an estimated cost of $9.8 billion. The AP1000 design was unique because it relied on pre-fabricated parts which allowed for modular construction. In 2013, construction began at V. C. Summer. However, numerous delays occurred from 2014 to 2017 due to manufacturing errors and incompetence. In 2017, the estimated construction cost had grown to $25 billion. Westinghouse, hobbled by the costs of the V. C. Summer expansion and a separate project in Georgia, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March 2017. Several months later the project was abandoned by Santee Cooper and SCE&G's parent company, SCANA. Ratepayers continue to pay increased rates for the expansion despite its termination.

Nuclear is not an option going forward until massive change in regulations occur.

 

[the moops]

A little late to this discussion, but, Alex is 100% right here. Just a single metric to illustrate the point: the US could go to 70% electric vehicles tomorrow and that would only offset the carbon output from China's cement production alone. Cement. Forget that they are the leaders in production of plastics, refrigeration, electronics, you name whatever product you think is destroying the climate.

We can’t just keep saying “but China” everytime we talk about global emissions. I trust your numbers and while the Chinese cement production is outrageous, offsetting that by EV conversion is better than doing nothing.

 

[Peggy]

A little late to this discussion, but, Alex is 100% right here. Just a single metric to illustrate the point: the US could go to 70% electric vehicles tomorrow and that would only offset the carbon output from China's cement production alone. Cement. Forget that they are the leaders in production of plastics, refrigeration, electronics, you name whatever product you think is destroying the climate.

We can’t just keep saying “but China” everytime we talk about global emissions. I trust your numbers and while the Chinese cement production is outrageous, offsetting that by EV conversion is better than doing nothing.

It's akin to doing nothing. And that's in a fantasy world where 60% of our electrical power doesn't come from fossil fuels like it currently does. As others stated it's possible to make a noticeable difference with mass nuclear energy or something, but, not EVs. I mean you feel good about not using pesticides to kill the weeds in your lawn but in reality it doesn't make one bit of difference compared to the golf course down the street using agricultural grade.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Well, I think at least some EV buyers did so to move away from buying gas every week/2 weeks. Right?

I don't see a scenario where I don't have at least one EV in my household going forward. I'm saving around $200 month net.

Is it true that insurance is a lot more on EVs?

What about the cost of replacing the batteries once they end their life expectancy? I heard that was extremely expensive

I can't see a scenario where I keep an EV out of warranty.

my 2016 Model S warranty is done in two months. replaced the motor two months ago. i'm going to ride her til she dead. no reason not to.

 

[beer 30]

A little late to this discussion, but, Alex is 100% right here. Just a single metric to illustrate the point: the US could go to 70% electric vehicles tomorrow and that would only offset the carbon output from China's cement production alone. Cement. Forget that they are the leaders in production of plastics, refrigeration, electronics, you name whatever product you think is destroying the climate.

We can’t just keep saying “but China” everytime we talk about global emissions. I trust your numbers and while the Chinese cement production is outrageous, offsetting that by EV conversion is better than doing nothing.

It's akin to doing nothing. And that's in a fantasy world where 60% of our electrical power doesn't come from fossil fuels like it currently does. As others stated it's possible to make a noticeable difference with mass nuclear energy or something, but, not EVs. I mean you feel good about not using pesticides to kill the weeds in your lawn but in reality it doesn't make one bit of difference compared to the golf course down the street using agricultural grade.

Honestly I'm a big fan of hydrogen as the path forward but there is a lot of work to be done before it gets close to where EV's are now. Thinking a decade out, maybe a little less but not much.