The Myth of Summer Vacation
I'm about to take a few weeks off. If you are, too, we're in the minority. A Conference Board poll last April found fewer than 40 percent of Americans planning a summer vacation.
Of course, for most Americans, there's not much summer vacation to begin with. The average American employee gets a total of 14 days off each year. If you want to take a few of them around Thanksgiving, between Christmas and New Years, and maybe when the kids are home on spring break, summer vacation is already practically gone.
Those 14 days, by the way, are the fewest vacation days in any advanced economy. The average French worker gets 37 days off annually; In Britain, it's 26.
And even when we take those 14 days, we don't always get paid for them. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us 1 out of 4 workers gets no paid vacation days at all. Every other advanced nation -- and even lots of developing nations -- mandate them.
On top of all this comes the current economic squeeze. That figure of 40 percent of Americans planning a summer vacation is the lowest in 30 years.
Not incidentally, consumer confidence in the economy is the lowest it's been in 28 years. In other words, there's a correlation between the small number of Americans taking a vacation this summer and this very bad economy.
It's not that we're too busy to vacation. Just the opposite: There's not enough work go around. Which means we don't dare leave work, lest we lose us a customer who might just happen to want us when we're gone. Or we could even lose the job, because employees on vacation might seem expendable to an employer looking for a way to cut costs.
Despite all this, you need a summer vacation. I do, too. I'll return in August.
Of course, for most Americans, there's not much summer vacation to begin with. The average American employee gets a total of 14 days off each year. If you want to take a few of them around Thanksgiving, between Christmas and New Years, and maybe when the kids are home on spring break, summer vacation is already practically gone.
Those 14 days, by the way, are the fewest vacation days in any advanced economy. The average French worker gets 37 days off annually; In Britain, it's 26.
And even when we take those 14 days, we don't always get paid for them. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us 1 out of 4 workers gets no paid vacation days at all. Every other advanced nation -- and even lots of developing nations -- mandate them.
On top of all this comes the current economic squeeze. That figure of 40 percent of Americans planning a summer vacation is the lowest in 30 years.
Not incidentally, consumer confidence in the economy is the lowest it's been in 28 years. In other words, there's a correlation between the small number of Americans taking a vacation this summer and this very bad economy.
It's not that we're too busy to vacation. Just the opposite: There's not enough work go around. Which means we don't dare leave work, lest we lose us a customer who might just happen to want us when we're gone. Or we could even lose the job, because employees on vacation might seem expendable to an employer looking for a way to cut costs.
Despite all this, you need a summer vacation. I do, too. I'll return in August.
posted by Robert Reich | 6:33 PM
113 Comments:
We know better Mr. Reich. According to Obama's Meet the Press appearance you'll be sitting down with a Who's Who list of Economists.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25872602#25872602
at 4:45
14 days?? that's crazy (way too fu*ken low!)...
have a great vacation!
aly k
You left out using vacation days to care for sick children. My sick days are shrinking every year.
Dr. Reich,
I'm still on my vacation in Holland. Vacations in Europe are holy and greatly respected by all employers. People come back refreshed with new energy and loyalty for the job. In Holland, everyone receives in April a Vacation Allowance that is a certain percentage of one's monthly income.
America is in the Ice Age when it comes to basic social coverages... and will probably remain so.
It's sad but true that Americans don't take summer vacation or vacations at all, but recently a reader comment on my book, Beach Chair Diaries, Summer Tales from Maine to Maui, that reading it was
like taking a summer vacation and saving on gas too. Hope this helps people working too hard.
You're right, the concept of a summer vacation is a myth. Not to mention for those in the middle class who have lost the 'real' jobs they had-- and not working/ or with temporary jobs, no longer has what it takes financially to even travel to a resort within their state.
I have been hearing some bleak stories. The American worker seem to have been left behind-- who will emerge to save them?
In America we're working to become Dicken's England. We'll defend international corporation's rights to suck our economy dry, change our systems, and money offshore to the very end, while maintaining that we're actually defending our rights to work hard and get rich.
But those days are over. Now that we're at Peak Oil, there's only one way this can go. Those that have wealth will see it increase and those that work for a living, will see that decline to nothing.
I appreciate that there are people here who are independently wealthy, have no debts, don't work for a paycheck and would sail through a Great Depression unscathed, but you're in a minority. What works for you, won't work for everyone. Most people need a wages or a salary. If they go a few years without income, they'll suffer life changing set backs.
I live in a town, where the well being of my neighbors and coworkers, influences the life I lead. Though I appreciate that some posters here would be unaffected by massive job loss, a crash of the financial system and problems with food production and distribution, my town would be devastated by such events.
This is why i keep arguing that we should be using cooperation as a form of competition rather than each of us working to be apex predators, living alone, abandoning our children and chasing after nothing but fresh meat and sleep. In other words, dedicating our lives to the pursuit of increasing quantities of devaluing money.
Though Sbvor keeps arguing that the future will have tremendous if not infinite quantities of oil and will ship it back to us in Time Traveling pipelines designed by Irwin Allen, I'm not going to hold my breath.
I can't defend the continued deconstruction our Constitution, financial systems, economy and industry on the promise that destroying the fabric of our economy will make it possible for people to work hard and get rich. I believe that turning America into a Charles Dickens Nightmare will do the opposite.
I'm a highly experienced Software Engineer. My career has been largely sold off to India by Dick Armey and friends. So I'm only earning ten vacation days a year. I suspect that the vacation days counted are skewed by teachers who get the summer off, so they can take jobs in other industries until the Fall semesters start.
But that's the American way. If you make money, betraying America, you're doing something right.
The loss of the family vacation is another dimension of the "silent depression" that has eroded family life in America over the last 40 years.
Family vacations are a time where shared dreams are realized and memories are created. The loss of vacation time is another example where the basic structure and foundation of the family is being breaken down.
The social-economic stresses on American families drive the basic family connections apart. Parents are both working and both are commuting (into suburbs with cheaper housing options) long distances. Families don't even eat together. Parents don't cook and schedules are fragmented to the point where family members just walk past each other on the way out the door.
The fundamental structure seen in most societies has been destroyed in America and the evaporation of the vacation is another example.
I've long envied the French who work 36 hours/wk and still get the month of August off.
Vacation? If I take time off from my main job, I pick up more hours at my 2nd job. Or I spend it waiting for the repairperson to show up at the house, or go to the dentist or doctor. Vacation? don't make me laugh.
And I think that's an under-reported phenomenon, the number of Americans who have 2nd or 3rd jobs. Among my colleagues at this company, roughly 1/2 either have a 2nd job or their spouses do. Or they're running a small business on weekends and a day off from this place is a day to work at the business.
And I think we desperately need vacation time to rest, refresh, reconnect, renew, revive our minds, bodies and spirits. Vacations are not "luxuries" but necessities that in the long run make us more happier and more productive. But corporate America is out to make profits to justify big salaries for executives and more vacation time for workers means Donald Trump et al don't get the newest Mercedes.
Enjoy your vacation. We'll miss you while you're out doing all the things we NEED to do.
Actually, let's not get too guilt-ridden by a overly idealized and enobled notion of Europeans.
Most Americans get 2 weeks of PAID vacation. Most people can actually take all the vacation they like. what I'd like to know is if we're getting 50 weeks earnings/26 checks, and if it genuinely is less per week of work than a French resident's 46 weeks earnings/26 checks (adjusted for the monthly disbursment typical to "EUtopia."
It's not just vacations that have been lost. It's also evenings and weekends. How many hours per week do we work these days?
Family Values = Spending time with your family. Including time to care for the sick or aged, time for dinner, time for play, time for vacations. Time to teach. Time to be there for each other.
It is not he Republican concept of outsourcing the moral and intellectual growth of our children to a church. Nor is it the economically impossible one the income family. Nor is it hatred of others who are different.
I don't believe that most Americans get two weeks paid vacation.
I believe that most salaried Americans get paid vacations.
I believe that most hourly Americans don't get paid vacations.
weaseldog:
Not sure I can agree with that.
Everywhere I have worked all employees got paid vacations. Only a couple of places limited it to one week, most were two weeks. The same is true for other companies of which I had explicit knowledge.
Larger corporations also offer greater paid vacation time based on years of service. My last employer from which I retired, albeit it with a shove, provided three weeks paid vacation after just 5 years.
Art, I believe it's your personal experience that the employees got paid vacations.
Since the 80s the trend has been to hire more contract workers.
In other words temps. They don't get vacations. And as they are self employed they don't get benefits and when out of work, they aren't unemployed.
I don't know the answer one way or another on this topic. I doubt the government publishes accurate statistics on this.
I believe we're both just guessing, based on anecdotal evidence.
In the places you've worked were most of the folks hourly workers?
weaseldog:
I agree about the temps and independent contractors. My experience has been that the vast majority of those are found in white collar work. Again my last employer, at the end of the month, employed a large number of temps in blue collar positions, to facilitate large distribution needs. The work lasted for a week or 10 days and then they were let go. It was truly a temp type need.
Though we had temps in the office area too, they were usually longer term although not permanent temps. In fact when I went to my last employer I started there as a temp and then was offered a full-time position.
The full-time blue collar workforce, by far the largest employee segment all received paid vacations.
I have worked for large and small companies with varying mixes of hourly and salaried workers. In most all of those all "employees" were given paid vacations and most of the workers were "employees", not temps or independent contractors.
My last employer did tend to replace IT personnel with independent contractors, mostly through attrition.
I am not guessing nor basing anything on anecdotal information. In most of my professional jobs I was in charge of payroll and in some cases in charge of human resources so my information is empirical and first hand. Early in my career before I got my degree, a period of 12 or 13 years, I worked mostly as an hourly worker and I generally received paid vacations.
Since much of that time was just after the Civil War it might have been one week instead of two.
Joe Noory - I don't know where you work, but I've NEVER been able to extra time without pay except under FMLA. Hell, it's hard enough to get approval for your 2 weeks.
i'd like to take a small vacation but all i would do is hang around the house, i spent all my money on gas and healthcare.
Hi diddlee dee it's off to France for me..
France in August is hillarious..
I think you need another revolution, 14 days is not good.
Dr. Reich,
Surveys show Americans start out with far fewer vacation days than workers in any other Western developed countries:
UK............25 vacation days/year
Germany.......27 vacation days/year
France........39 vacation days/year
Sweden........30 vacation days/year
Holland.......25 vacation days/year
Canada........20 vacation days/year
U.S...........12 vacation days/year
Even America's northern neighbor is well ahead of us with 67% more vacation days for workers.
Have a nice vacation Professor Reich!
tp
I once worked as a research scientist on a grant for a south-eastern university. The contract explicitly stated that I had no vacation (annual leave) at all! (Actually, the University was afraid I'd accumulate vacation time which would oblige them in any way past the end of the appointment or grant money.) Still, this contract is considered as hilarious by my European friends!
Now I have annual leave, but also face the quandary of how much of it I can afford to use (to bring my children to see grandma) and if my job would be more easily renewed if I put visibly work first (when my department faces tight schedules).
I have worked most of my life and then took time off to stay at home with my only child. He will be in 1st grade this year. My husband's job is tanking (rv industry) so now I must go to work. I am dreading the fact that what ever I do, I will be at the bottom again, with no vacation time. Vacations, whether they are paid or not, should become law in this country. Content workers are more productive employees.
AMERICAN ROBOT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND BLOG.
WE MUST WORK TO FEED CORPORATE PROFIT. DEAL OR NO DEAL. I AM AMERICAN ROBOT. FEED ME FAST FOOD AND PRO WRESTLING. JESUS AND MY PRESIDENT ARE FRIENDS.
YOUR BLOG DOES NOT COMPUTE. BACK TO TELEVISION FOLLOWED BY WORK FOLLOWED BY TELEVISION.
Have a wonderful vacation for you.
WeaselDog continues to demonstrate a less than accurate obsession with me and my positions.
My real views on energy can be found here.
I understand your position Sbvor.
If you're correct, it will take decades before the drilling will make a significant difference and get the world back to energy consumption growth.
While those decades pass, world oil production will continue to decline.
It will take massive investment to pull this off. and even so, it'll only buy our grandchildren a decade or so of growth before the decline begins again.
Currently the US consumes about 23 million barrels a day. Just getting these fields up to that level will take time and huge investments. Then to keep the global economy running, the US has to provide the world with oil.
If by some miracle US production could rise fast enough to get the world back to 3% growth, while the rest of the world is in a conservative 3% decline, I get the following unhappy figures in Excel...
Year US Prod Total
2008 9.983233981 9.983233981
2009 14.87073486 24.85396885
2010 19.76677328 44.62074213
2011 24.67562733 69.29636946
2012 29.60158629 98.89795575
2013 34.54895441 133.4469102
2014 39.52205462 172.9689648
2015 44.52523236 217.4941971
2016 49.56285933 267.0570565
2017 54.63933734 321.6963938
2018 59.75910215 381.455496
2019 64.92662734 446.3821233
2020 70.14642822 516.5285515
2021 75.42306579 591.9516173
2022 80.7611507 672.712768
2023 86.16534729 758.8781153
2024 91.64037769 850.518493
2025 97.19102588 947.7095189
2026 102.822142 1050.531661
2027 108.5386463 1159.070307
2028 114.345534 1273.415841
2029 120.2478789 1393.66372
2030 126.2508385 1519.914559
We can play a number of games with what ifs with these numbers.
But to offset a world decline of only 3% we'd have to ramp up production to more than we currently use, in only four years.
Of course, our consumption will increase in this period.
If we can
t offset world production, but can demonstrate that we can raise production, then other nations will start eyeing us with a lean and hungry look. War would soon come to our shores.
weaseldog:
While I tend to agree with your doomsday scenario I see it as a catch-22 dilemma. If we don't drill more and world supply continues to decline we will reach a point where production is falling far short of demand and today's prices will be the good old days. We will be sitting on the bulk of the world's recoverable oil reserves.
Do we think that the rest of the world is going to just accept that those are our reserves and if we don't want to tap them that's our privilege?
Here Comes da Wars!
We need alternatives and sooner rather than later or world harmony will become an atonal symphony. "Bombs bursting in air" will become a nearby phenomenon.
I hear you Art.
The arguments about reserves change with the times. In times of scarcity it seems that they become inflated.
For instance, leading up to the current war in Iraq, some politicians were telling us that Iraq had bigger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia.
Though I honestly believe that we have untapped oil in the US, I'm not convinced that the P10 numbers are accurate. I'm not aware that P10 numbers such as the ones Sbvor is posting, have ever been accurate. they tend to get published in order to be used in marketing.
And the real problem is extraction rates. More importantly than total reserves, we have the problem of getting it out of the ground at ever faster rates. And the lower the quality of the source, the slower the rates tend to be.
Finally consider if the pie in the sky eternal optimists aren't correct and our oil reserves are actually on par with what we thought they were just a few short years ago. We've been advertising that we might have more oil than has ever been produced. If we don't deliver, we may have war without the oil to defend ourselves with. The song 'One Tin Soldier' seems an apt summary of how that could play out... sort of...
I believe that we'll drill everywhere we can, as fast as we can, and still the price will go up, because extraction rates won't keep up with the decline.
If I'm wrong, that's cool. But I see no percentage in designing our lives to be dependant on an unfounded prediction. There's no downside to living like times are going to get harder, unless your emotional well being is dependant on going into debt, accumulating plastic crap from China.
I'm working on eliminating the last of my debts, and I do not intend to add to that load. Sbvor tries to make the case that civilization is about to go into another golden age of growth. Maybe he's right. But if I go deeper into debt, counting on him to be correct, and he's wrong, I'm gonna be screwed.
So for now, I'm going to arrange my life with the assumption that pay is going to stagnate and prices are going to keep rising. At least until I'm proven otherwise.
Henry Paulson's recent promise to solve our banking woes by loosening credit, and dropping rates to unleash more monies into the economy, does not give me warm and fuzzy feelings.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
weaseldog:
Tend to agree with your summation. And you're right, it doesn't bode well for us in the longer term to be blue skying our estimates.
As for Paulson; I really don't think these guys have a clue. There is an age old business cliche that you don't solve problems by throwing money at them. Not sure that those in Washington understand that.
Squeezing the ballon merely moves the air.
Art, we're gonna crash if we don't stop. As you know, we can't grow to infinite consumption.
Signs say we're coming up on our limits. The numbers needed to keep pushing growth, are getting too large.
And in the numbers I posted, I assumed a 3% decline in world oil production. Colin Campbell and many others are forecasting a 6%-8% decline, based on the fact that new technologies let us drain fields faster and more completely, so that when they crash, they crash hard and fast.
So if Sbvor is correct, we can be at this same place again, before 2020, desperate for a solution, but with the clock run out.
Remember that in the Genesis story of Joseph and the Pharaoh, when Joseph prophesied lean years ahead (seven fat cows, seven lean cows), his advice wasn't to deplete the stores faster.
But that is the advice we're hearing. Is racing to deplete our resources as fast as possible, the smart thing to do?
Everyone needs a dam vacation. This country is going to hell in a hand basket.
Wait a minute - if China is poised to take over the world - maybe we need to know how much vacation they get?
I'm afraid to find out.
My post on “Peak Oil” is relevant to the discussion between Art & Weaseldog.
Note that the EIA analysis discussed in that post does NOT factor in unconventional, but fully proven, resources such as Oil Sands, Oil Shale and Coal Liquefaction. The fact that each of these was fully proven on a commercial scale decades ago is documented in this post.
Well, okay, I did not document Oil Sands having been proven on a commercial scale, but that’s an easy one.
There is no climate crisis and there is nothing even close to an immediate “Peak Oil” crisis.
There IS, however, a crisis of political will which threatens to do grave harm not just to us, but to the entire world!
Everybody knows we will eventually have to move beyond petroleum as a source of energy for transportation. Failing to take a pragmatic and all encompassing view of how to get there will do nothing but harm (and, even this “green” site knows it)!
Again, click here for the big picture.
Oil sands are proven.
The problem is not quantity, but rate of production.
And add to that, the need continuous growth.
To keep up 3% growth, we get into truly impossible numbers in only a couple of decades.
We will continue to use oil, but growth is over. But population growth will continue.
So energy per capita will continue to decline as will industry per capita. Our population will continue to outgrow jobs. Our population from here on out, will outgrow our food and water supplies.
The EIA has been overestimating for decades. They have never ever predicted a downturn. They always predict growth.
In their own studies they explain how they get their numbers. They use complex algorithms on multiple computers with excel spreadsheets to model estimated future demand. Then they determine what level of supply is needed to provide for that demand at an equitable price, and that is what they publish.
The EIA did not predict the 2001 downturn and they did not predict the current flattening of production.
Wait and see Sbvor.
Weaseldog,
1) If the problem is “rate of production”, how do you figure that continued production obstructionism from Democrats will help to address that problem?
2) You think that “To keep up 3% growth, we get into truly impossible numbers in only a couple of decades.”?
You will excuse me if I place more confidence in the EIA than in you. That chart, again, comes from this EIA presentation (wherein they noted just a few of the many “Peak Oil” hysteria pimps who have already been proven wrong by history.
Again, click here for the big picture.
I hope you're not vacationing in Moscow. It's now the priciest city on Forbes list of the world's most expensive cities. Is Russia still communist like Red china? Or are they capitalists like Red china. It gets so confusing.
Thanks to the redistribution of wealth, we ain't what we used to be. But we all know that.
Look at the list & you can tell where that redistribution is going.
"World's Most Expensive Cities"
http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/105443/World%27s-Most-Expensive-Cities
tt
Sbvor, I understand that you trust the government and government supplied statistics and analysis.
I'm good with that. I guess someone has to trust that the government statistics are accurate.
Your chart is wrong.
Campbell and Laherre were forecasting 2010-2012 in 1998.
And as many have pointed out, the 2000 date came from Dr. King Hubbert in 1957? It's generally accepted that the oil embargoes of the 1970s pushed back the date.
Your logic is interesting. If someone is wrong about something, then everyone is wrong./
The EIA was wrong about their 2001 forecast. This proves that YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING. I can come up with other examples of people being wrong, proving that YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING, if you like.
But your logic that if one person is wrong, everyone is wrong all the time, is stupid. Because if anyone is wrong, then you're YOUR WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Quit arguing that you're wrong about everything. I don't believe it.
So you don't believe in Peak Oil. That means you believe oil is infinite. It's either finite or the oil in Earth exceeds the masss and volume of the universe. Do you really believe this, or do you believe in Peak Oil?
What's strange Sbvor is that many of the predictions may well be correct.
The evidence at the moment suggests that world oil production began it's plateau in 2004, and is oscillating now.
What do you think of the EIA being wrong in 2007 about the 2008 production profile?
It's a pity that now people have less chances to take a vacation and travel in spite of the fact that there are so many places to visit. The working conditions are really awful today.
UK workers (legally) get 4w of paid vacation a year plus eight public holidays. I believe this is going up / has gone up to 5w. If you don't take the time off, you get money instead. Just FYI.
Wease, you are wasting your precious time and breath on Sbvor, he appears to be one of those chaps who suffers from severe cognitive dissonance, a general inability to process ideas that do not originate within his own cranium, and says the same thing so many times that he comes to believe it.
I.e. there is no recession, there is no variation to the earth's climate, everything is rosy, the earth has a creamy nougat center of oil, liberals and environmentalists are the source of all the world's problems, the free market can solve all our problems, the war in Iraq is going well, abortion is evil, etc (all straight from his blog).
Self delusional at best, sociopathic at worst.
Just put your fingers in your ears and repeat the same mantra over and over. It apparently works for some.
To Fallout:
Well said! I couldn't agree with you more. He degrades the level of discusssion and recommendations on this important blog of Dr. Reich. He sucks in good thinking people to waste time on his distorted semamtics and documentaries. He's obviously correct on a few things but lacks any creativity to see new ways of approaching anything ... except saying eveyone else is full of ...
It is always “interesting” to observe the bald faced lies that so-called “Liberals” fabricate about their opposition (and the issues) as a pathetic substitute for objective facts (which they uniformly lack).
It's not that we're too busy to vacation. Just the opposite: There's not enough work go around.
How ironic. We can't take vacation because there's not enough work.
It sounds to me like the solution is to require employers to give us more time off. I'd bet we could live quite well while working even less than the Europeans.
Ah, see, there we go again, another canned response, once again repeating what he has already said previously, the same tired old saw, over and over and over again. A parrot, responding on cue, apparently desperate for some attention.
Thank you for the well-timed illustration, Sbvor. =P
sbvor:
Realize education is anathema to you but read this article. It might give you some insight regarding your recession views. I doubt it but you can't grow if you don't learn.
This post has been removed by the author.
Art,
Education? From MSNBC? Riiiiiight! You keep on drinking that emotionally satisfying Kool-Aid.
Mr. Schoen, in his very first sentence claims (quite inaccurately):
“housing prices [are] plummeting”
That is, objectively, demonstrably and quantitatively nothing less than a BIG, FAT LIE (typical of the propagandists at MSNBC)! You’ll find the quantitative data proving him WRONG right here.
In the same sentence he claims:
“energy prices [are] soaring”
But, at the moment, the price of crude oil is declining, as is the price at the pump. Another BIG, FAT LIE!
Okay, we’ve finally got one quarter of just barely negative GDP growth (just revised Q4 of 2007). But, somehow, MSNBC overlooked an UPWARD revision which MORE THAN counterbalanced the downward revision! How do you suppose MSNBC missed THAT?. If you need to ask, then you STILL don’t understand the objective, scholarly, quantitative FACTS on media bias!
Quoting today’s BEA report (with emphasis mine):
“for 2007, the annual rate of growth of real GDP for the second quarter was revised up 1.0 percentage point, from 3.8 percent to 4.8 percent, while the growth rate for the fourth quarter was revised down 0.8 percentage point, from a small increase (0.6 percent) to a small decrease (0.2 percent).”
As for the NBER discussion, which part of that do you think I am unaware of? The NBER parameters were, from the beginning, the very foundation of my ongoing commentary on “The Recession of 2008 That Wasn’t?”.
Bottom line, unless we see at least two more negative GDP quarters in 2008 (and that ain’t happening), we’re NOT going to see a recession in 2008 (and the traders at Intrade KNOW IT!).
Art, as long as you continue to rely upon so-called “journalists” (ESPECIALLY the propagandists at MSNBC) for your “education”, you will remain pathetically IGNORANT (and thoroughly propagandized)!
Think for yourself! Bypass the so-called “journalists” and DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!
This post has been removed by the author.
Yes Art, you silly boy, why don't you learn from the great master of the blog, Sbvor the clown, and admit that you live in a country that could be perfect if it weren't for the party of traitors.
Yes Art, ungrateful chap, why don't you recognize the greatness of McCarthy and stand up, alone with the clown, against world judgement that obvioysly has been grossly misdirected?
And, Art, you unethical Democrat, why don't you raise your moral standards and push this country back to the Middle Ages by promoting a ban on abortions? Or by wholeheartedly condoning torture?
And finally you myopic little nothing, why don't you admit that the value of your house has gone through the roof while all these idiots who walked out on their homes drove themselves into debt by secretly gambling on illegal online casinos, set up by the Obama campaign to smear Bush the Brilliant?
Why Art?
Why don't you?
What have you got to say for yourself?
annie:
Geez! I just didn't understand. I mean I just didn't get it. I mean it's just all so confusing.
I feel so humbled, even blinded. After reading your post my screen got extremely brighter. I felt lighter, like a huge weight disappeared off my shoulders.
Knowledge is such a wonderful thing. I could feel doors opening everywhere, opportunities are abounding with the surge of energy in my mental faculties.
I should be ever in your debt.
On the other hand......
One more thing Art
Since you seem capable of repenting and finding the TRUTH again, please stay away from the PRAVDA of US news (if McCarthy were alive, that dumpster would have been sanitized, its reporters imprisoned or preferably executed and the people who had dinner with them permanently unemployed and ostracized... unfair you say? PERHAPS...) and stick to FOX and only FOX, the only station that GOD himself chose to fax the BIBLE directly to.
The rest got photocopies and fudged the data.
Ask the clown.
sbvor:
First off, you exhibit no comprehension of objectivity. Your ability to take a spreadsheet and graph it appears fair to middlin, but that ain't exactly rocket science.
Mr Schoen references, in a previous article your same source and focused on the year over year decline of 6.1% in housing prices. That you see, and chart, a minor uptick, which also occurred in a few other months in the past year, does not make him a liar. It merely speaks to your limited analytical ability.
If you look at the serious decline in the number of home sales and the continued rise in the Months Supply numbers over the past year, you don't have to be a PhD in economics to understand that the price pressure on home prices is down. The truer measure would be home values but that would be an abstract number and not really calculable, especially at a given point in time. Besides the true value of a home tends to be what it sells for.
The other problem with your conclusion, simply because you don't understand the numbers, is that higher priced homes are less impacted by the downturn and the mortgage foreclosures and the population in the market for more expensive homes is less likely to be affected by tight credit so those may represent more of the homes being sold. If true, that would drive the median price up.
Energy prices encompass far more than oil and gasoline. In my area the electricity supplier and the natural gas supplier are looking to raise prices near the end of the year. Oil and gasoline prices have soared over the past year. That we are seeing a slight decline at the moment, which may or may not continue, again, does not make Mr. Schoen a liar. For you to view it that way speaks loudly to your almost zero ability to comprehend much of anything.
You know you would make someone a good wife given your nitpicky, nonsensical assertions (my apologies to the ladies, am speaking stereotypically here). A revision in a prior quarter that drives GDP negative can be significant, especially if its just 2 quarters back. An upward quarterly revision occurring over a year ago is of no or very little interest except to those who chart and analyze the history of such things. The upward revision to QTR2 2007 would not be an offset nor have anything to do with the revision to QTR4 2007. In the first place they are both annualized numbers and as such the later number would be much more significant than the older number. Another example of your lack of understanding?
As I pointed out to you on your blog, you are aware of the NBER's various measures of determining recessions but seem unfamiliar with the weight they give to each one. Though GDP is their first order, unemployment ranks a strong second with varying weights to the other 4 or 5. It is not impossible that they would identify a recession based on rising unemployment and declines in all the other factors even with a meager though positive GDP.
To Mr. Schoen's point, we are a vast nation and while we tend to view economic conditions as a whole, there are pockets around the country which are not seeing any rise in the actions that drive GDP growth. Many of those in areas where the auto industry is the largest employer are living a recessionary life as we speak. That the national economy is showing limping growth is of little consequence to them.
To a large extent a recession is a personal thing. I've lived through a few of them and it didn't affect my lifestyle at all. I've known others impacted so severely that they felt their lives were over.
If one could presume that you are just a pie in the sky optimist, one might be inclined to humor you, even admire your positive outlook. Evidence points, however, to your being a spin artist, at best, or an "ignorant slut" at worst. Neither calls for much empathy.
I research when I feel like it. When I do I exhibit a much better grasp of what I am researching than you seem to. My "education" would not appear to need nearly as much improvement as your's would.
Keep trying. Your posts are not showing that you are learning but others of us are optimists too.
annie:
FOX? Really FOX? Hell I thought that was a comedy channel. You mean they are really serious.
I do admire their frugality. They save bundles by eliminating writers and getting their scripts directly from the White House.
Even the "real" BIBLE would only add to their fantasy view of the world.
Art,
Quote from Mr. Schoen:
“housing prices [are] plummeting”
Quantitative FACT:
The median sales price for existing homes has INCREASED in EACH of the last FOUR months! In FACT, the median sales price is UP 10% in JUST the last four months!
Conclusion:
Mr. Schoen LIED, plain, pure and simple!
P.S.) Regarding unemployment…
A typical recession will see at least “a two-point rise in unemployment to at least 6%” (as this chart demonstrates).
So far, we are a mere 1.3% above the lowest level reached during the current (and ongoing) economic expansion.
Unless unemployment reaches 6.4%, it is unlikely that a recession will take place at any point during 2008. And, the current forecast does not call for that.
Poor Dems! They are not going to get their much hoped for recession!
sbvor:
Try and be less inanely vitriolic. Maybe you would make fewer mistakes.
In the past year median home prices, of only those sold, are down 6.1%. Average home prices, same parameters, are down 6.8%. In a product market that has done little but rise over the last 50 years that is plummeting.
Since we are only looking at those which sold we are faced with that mix problem I spoke of in my previous post. That median or average prices are showing upward movement in the past few months tells us nothing about the prices of homes remaining unsold.
Naturally you include condos and co-ops in your number which is in your favor so obviously your choice. If you look only at single family homes, ex condos and co-ops, we see a median price decline in the past year of 6.7% and an average decline of 7.7%.
Condos and co-ops have many differentiating market nuances when compared to the general perception of "homes" so I question their inclusion.
The number of single family homes sold in the past year has declined by 14.8%. We know that foreclosures are up which does not cause a rise in home prices/values. We know that in many areas there are multiple foreclosures in certain neighborhoods. We also know that declining prices/values of foreclosed homes have the same effect on other homes in a neighborhood. It then logically follows that overall home prices/values are falling, maybe even plummeting. The fact that a particular segment of the market might be seeing stable or even rising prices and since our statistical view is only of homes sold, not all homes available for sale, it is simple economic logic to determine that all in all homes available for sale are seeing prices/values declining. Any deviation from that conclusion has to be in mix.
Since we also know that credit requirements have tightened significantly that means there are fewer buyers capable of getting mortgages creating more downward pressure on demand and thereby prices/values as well.
So far you have mastered downloading spreadsheets and developing charts from them. At this point, a good start, you have numbers and figures on a page. The next step is to begin to understand what those numbers and figures represent and mean. Currently you seem to be in the pre-novice stage of that, but keep working on it,
I realize that this is all over your head, but trust me.
sbvor:
For those of us of perhaps advanced age, living to 2009 may not be a given but for all others a recession occurring in 2009 rather than 2008 is no less disheartening.
Your vaunted Conference Board had us at a 5.7 unemployment average for the 4th qtr, 2008. We are already there. Given the recent announcements of layoffs occurring in July, likely not yet in the current numbers, the outlook for August does not look promising. Your 6.4 number may not be out of reach in the next month or so. If we are in a strong downturn, seems so, unemployment won't come in dribs and drabs but rather waves.
All the experts see the housing crisis as continuing to worsen before it gets better. The credit markets have yet to respond to all the Fed's attempts to buttress them. Europe is raising interest rates which could drive them over the brink and a serious downturn there could have major negative effects on a turnaround here.
The Fed may start raising interest rates here to strengthen the dollar which could bring down oil and food prices some but could also cause a further shrinking of economic growth. It seems fair to say that we are not in a national recession just yet, although we do have areas of the country suffering effects as if we were.
Economic forecasts, especially unemployment numbers, are nothing more than guesses. Granted educated guesses by knowledgable people but globalization has distorted all the old parameters and the guesses often appear more as SWAGs.
No one is hoping or wishing for a recession but forewarned is forearmed.
Art
You are right. Let me give you my neighborhood's story. Houses bought three years ago and sold 8 months ago (bought at the peak that is)have suffered a 25-30% drop. During the last 8 months four houses are up for sale, none has sold. Buyers prefer to rent.
Friends give me the same picture elsewhere. I know a crisis when I see one. I don't need any republican crap about whining Americans or as another "sensitive" heroine had put it "qu'ils mangent de la brioche."
On the other hand, in my area again, houses bought five years ago or before would sell for more than the purchase price, just making the yearly inflation rate.
sbvor:
Your euphoric optimism may turn out prescient if Obama gets elected. If McCain, best to sell all your stock while it still has some value.
athena:
God I just love it when you speak French.
I sometimes feel like all conservatives are direct descendents from the last of the French Monarchs.
My area too has experienced mixed effects. Some areas housing prices are in decline and in others prices are rising fairly well. You can guess that the rising prices are not taking place in those areas most available to the common man.
Housing crisis? Where?
Quoting our local paper:
“JOHNSON, RICHARD To JEFFCOAT, JOLENE For SHADOW RUN CONDO UNIT 103 - $240,000”
According to our county records, Mr. Johnson bought that condo just under three years ago (on 8/25/2005) for $117,500.
In LESS THAN THREE YEARS, Mr. Richard Johnson saw a 104% return on investment!
WHAT HOUSING CRISIS?
A few years in Brussels left their mark I am afraid.
But one more thing, as I fervently believe in individual responsibility.
To a great extent,(not wholly) the crisis is a result of our own greed and speculation practices. In Florida I was amazed at the rate of increase from 2004-2006. I had lived in overpopulated European cities where the rule was simple. Demand and supply regulated the prices. The more people moved into Athens, the more scarce was land. So it was logical that the area became as expensive as New York.
But in Florida?
It made no sense. Thousands of acres of underdevelopped land,close to urban centers, that could accomodate a far higher number of population. Why was land being treated as "scarce?"
Therefore, here, it was speculation, greed, and ignorance. And at times irresponsible behavior on the part of the buyer who was borrowing more than he should.
sbvor:
Jesus man! We're talking a nationwide phenomenon here and you want to quote me one example from your local newspaper.
Well hell! At least your intellectual capacity is consistent.
Art,
Athena offered her (utterly unsubstantiated) “neighborhood's story”, I offered mine (and fully substantiated it).
Some people make smarter choices than others. SORRY!
You want the national story?
You CAN’T HANDLE the national story (because the FACTS do NOT comport with your PROPAGANDA)!
Google "Financial Ninja" Read his blog, and read Mish's on the right hand side links. Mish has a blog entry on the jobs report yesterday. Again he refers to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Table A12. US unemployment rate, counting marginally attached, counting people who can only find part-time employment, 10.3%.
sbvor:
At least Athena referenced a few instances, unsubstantiated or not. All empirical evidence is not documented, especially not on conservative websites.
I, and many others here, try to enlighten you, but your head is so far up your *** that you can't comprehend anything but your predetermined view.
Your chart tells you very little about housing prices in general. In fact one of your charts shows a continuing decline in housing sales. Since homes are not consumable nor perishable that implies that demand for housing is declining and what happens to prices when supply is constant, even growing, many builders finished up homes they had started before the bottom fell out, and demand declines? That would be a rhetorical question for most but in your case a little research and an answer might be appropriate. If you read the news releases associated with the source of your charts even they do not proffer a pretty picture.
What you fail to understand is that your chart of median or average home prices tells you nothing. Buried in those numbers could very well be the fact that even though the overall median price rose the prices those homes sold for may have been much lower than they were a year ago.
Again, since credit is tight only those with solid credit and downpayments can afford to buy homes. Generally this would suggest people with means. Not necessarily wealthy but likely with higher incomes than the average. That population would be in the market for more expensive homes, not mansions, but homes with values exceeding the norm. They would be especially interested in buying a $215,000 home that just last year was worth $315,000.
You just seem to have no analytical skills at all. If it's a number and can be charted then it must say what you think it says. I use the term "think" very liberally here.
Talk about pathetic.
sbvor:
More.
We also know that there are regions of the country where home values (prices) are rising and others where there is no sign of decline. These facts also come from the media.
Do we take small little subsets and back into the national population or do we view the overall picture which clearly points to declining home values and understand that it is not universally absolute?
Don't bother to answer. Its a weekend and I don't want to tax your mental faculties, limited though they may be.
Athena:
Don't know the practices in Europe but in the US the development of land is controlled by zoning regulations established by local governments with a lot of help from developers.
If a parcel of land is zoned commercial its value will often preclude its viability for residential housing. Certain zoning regs may even deny residential housing on some parcels.
Can't speak to Florida's habits or dilemmas but Florida has been growing population for years much of it due to retirees. At the same time it has become a growing industrial area as well bringing in younger families. I do remember when I lived there back in the early sixties that there were issues with the ground stability once you get down a few feet. I recall that some residential areas required building up the land foundation to support home construction. It is possible that much of the land that looks to be available is not viable for building without significant increased cost for preparing the land.
Florida is not alone where speculation, greed and ignorance is concerned. They are American pastimes.
Irresponsible behavior can be one of those eye of the beholder phenomena. Not always wise, but a home buying paradigm has long been, for those entering or in peak earning years, to overextend themselves with a home purchase. The theory is that a more expensive home will appreciate faster, usually due to location, and that earnings will, in the near future get back to parity with your mortgage. No doubt a gamble if the economy goes sour but generally Americans are optimistic and view possible downturns as low risk or of short duration.
Much of the current problem can be defined as irresponsible behavior on the part of buyers but is heavily attributable to unseemly, if not downright illegal behavior on the part of the mortgage business. Prior to the last year or so there was not a lot of chatter about a housing bubble and the model had been to buy a home with little or no downpayment with an ARM or Interest Only mortgage and when a payment hike came into view it was easy to refinance to a fixed or more favorable mortgage. It looked like a win-win situation and it was for many for a few years.
When the bottom began to fall out refinancing became costly or impossible and many dreams burst.
As home values started to decline the problem was exacerbated and scrimping to try to pay the higher mortgage payment no longer made sense. We even see some who can afford the payment increases bailing out because of the declining home values.
Years ago, caveat emptor, was the rule of thumb for any transaction between two parties. New laws and regulations muted that doctrine and new generations grew up believing they were protected from dubious business practices.
Quite often in our capitalistic system the wisdom of buyers is no match for the innovation of sellers.
Art
Zoning regulations exist all over the western world but as you know far better than I do, they change at times.
I agree with your assessment but in Florida speculation was -I believe that is- the steam engine of the disaster. Not only do we attract retirees but also "second home" buyers near the coast.
Miami probably was hit the worst from wild speculation that triggered overdevelopment and galloping home prices, which led to the current situation of surging foreclosures and short sales.
And although in my profession statistics are the basis for a discussion, I have learnt -from bitter experience- to take them with a grain of salt . Just this morning I was reading at the unpatriotic NBC New report raises U.S. AIDS rate 40 percent
Athena:
Agree zoning can be changed but in most cases that is driven by developers and developers are not generally into the public welfare. The other manipulation gimmick is zoning variances. Generally these are effected to allow commercial activities in a residential area or a heavier commercial activity in an area designated as light commercial.
To your point these kinds of activities are usually driven by greed and speculation and seldom with an eye to bettering the local community.
After WWII there were a raft of new home communities built around the country that, while profit motivated, did establish reasonably priced housing for the worker bees. Greed has been with us for eons but there was a time in America where the general welfare worked in concert with profits.
Tourist and vacation areas are always at the top of the list for real estate speculation. We have and have had a similar explosion in NC along the coast. There's a big brouhaha going on now related to eroding beaches, waterfront homes and the need to maintain public beach access. I don't follow it closely but there are some people about to take a bath on some very expensive homes.
I guess due to large expanses of undeveloped land real estate speculation has been a booming enterprise in America for years. Sometimes it's an, if you build it they will come scenario, but more often it follows the crowd. If people are flocking to Florida it doesn't make a lot of sense for developers to home in on Alaska.
I understand from a girlfriend of my wife's that Ft. Lauderdale has seen escalating home prices for years as well. Don't know the exact details but she bought a small home there years ago probably in the $60-$75,000 range and it's now worth, or was a year ago, in the neighborhood of $300,000.
The same story has been true of the Raleigh area. Anywhere that has seen significant population growth over the last 20 or 30 years has enjoyed that same effect on home prices. Even slow growth communities have seen sprawl create pockets of fantastic home price increases in many suburban areas. I related on one of these blogs that we lived in our second home just over 2 years and realized a 97% gain when we sold it and we sold it after a recession was going on or my return would have been 120%. That was in a decaying town in Ohio.
It is this kind of history that spurs more and more folks to buy homes even if it stretches them a little. Where you have a concentration of buyers the developers and sellers will not be far behind. And then the tango commences.
While my whole professional life has been involved with figures I have never been wowed with statistical calculations. I am constantly infuriated with the many, media, politicians, etc., who use percentages and other statistical data slanted or interpreted to "sell" their point of view. Though I understand the theory of statistical sampling I am always skeptical of the population make up and how representative it is.
Idiots like sbvor, though seemingly expert in nothing, only reinforce my skepticism.
best blogs: if measured as it was in 1980s, unemployment is at 14%. Another 10% increase and we'll be in the Depression 25%
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
Also cool comment: why are the Republicans in the oil drilling now? Up until 2 years ago, they had control of Congress and the White House. Where was the urgency for drilling then? Can they really not see further into the future than 1 year?
Dr. Reich and Readers:
Here's a HELICOPTER VIEW of our Financial Directions to stir understanding and equally valid ideas of HOW our financial strengths could develop with a proper, prudent, creative, and consistent leadership committment.
I make no claims of perfection in this forecasted Overview of policies and incremental Cash Outflows and Inflows over next eight years. Nevertheless, I believe I'm fairly close to the Investment priorities and relative scale of Investments required and returns that might be expected ... plus or minus a 15% margin of error, hopefully.
___________________________________
STRATEGIC 2009-2016 BUDGET DILEMMAS/TRADEOFFS
___________________________________
To noone's surprise, the 2009National Budget is forecast to hit an astonishingly large absolute DEFICIT of $490 Billion ... bringing the National Debt to over $10 Trillion, a DOUBLING in 9 years!
This Deficit deceptively appears less dramatic when presented as 3.3% of GDP in 2009. But it is 16% of the 2009 Budget, increasing to 25% when Soc.Security/Medicare are excluded which are (oranges and apples) separate cost centers having own tax revenue/payment cashflows.
Little wonder our National Debt by 2009 will have mushroomed $5 Trillion since 2001 compared to a $5 Trillion increase over prior 50 years! Little wonder also the combined Savings of households, businesses, and government have been less than 1% of National Income ... the lowest level in at least 50 years!
This has in turn reduced productivity and business investment to less than 4% of GDP and an ominous dependence on foreign capital inflows (i.e., foreign Savings) to finance our domestic business investment ... to the tune of Three-Quarters of US net investment.
How can the economy be regenerated in short-term and long-term by Spending/Cutting-Raising Taxes/Tax Incentives/Raising Investment Funds-Savings without further skyrocketing annual Deficits to ±4-5% of GDP, e.g., +-$600 Billion in years 2010-2016 ... a disaster for the Dollar and thus fossil fuel prices?
Please note, Dr. Reich (and McCain and Obama's economic advisory teams), the THREE GOLDEN RULES controlling government spending in the UK and Holland, for example, with various degrees of success:
A. Borrow only to Invest and NOT to fund Current Spending.
B. Public sector Debt is to be held stable at a Prudent level.
C. Annual Budget Deficits are to be kept to a minimum by the appropriate Spending adjustments and/or Tax increases/decreases, when and where unavoidably necessary.
Starting with announced 2009 Budget as a given, here's an order of magnitude forecast of Added Investment Outflows and possible Added Offsetting Inflows over years 2010-2016.
___________________________________
I. ADDED INVESTMENT OUTFLOWS
ANNUALLY AND IN TOTAL 2010-16
___________________________________
1....INFRASTRUCTURE: Bridges, Roads, Urban Transit Systems, Sewer Systems, Water Flood Controls, etc. The design work on some systems has been sitting on the shelf for some time and can be put to immediate use.
-$80 Billion, or -$560 Billion
___________________________________
2....EDUCATION: Investment in HUMAN CAPITAL directed at improvements in: (a) educational achievement in high schools and elementary schools; (b) teacher salaries and standards; (c) greater access to affordable; students loans; (d) funds for retraining/upgrading worker skills including military personnel.
-$70 Billion, or -$490 Billion
___________________________________
3....HEALTH CARE: Providing health care to 45 million uninsured Americans. It's assumed 70% of recipients can pay lower premiums and government will subsidize rest.
-$50 Billion, or -$350 Billion
___________________________________
4....ENERGY INDEPENDENCE: Tax incentives for Alternate Green Fuels (hybrids, electricity, hydrogen, solar, wind, environmentally correct biofuels, etc.); Fuel Efficiency (drastically reducing gas guzzling cars and industries); Energy Conservation (constructing environmentally friendly buildings, making idle appliances that consume less electricity, installing energy-saving lighting in homes/offices/streets, etc.).
-$50 Billion, or -$350 Billion
___________________________________
5....SUPPORT OF WEAK FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS and HOMEOWNER VICTIMS OF SUB-PRIME LENDING: Loans and loan guarantees to financial institutions for limited periods like to Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie, Homeowner victims, etc.
-$40 Billion, or -$160 Billion
NOTE: This estimate could be 5 to 10 times higher if Fannie/Freddie mortgage loan defaults and deriviative defaults are much higher than expected.
___________________________________
6....TAX CREDITS FOR BOTTOM 25% HOUSEHOLD EARNING GROUP TO COMPENSATE THEM FOR VERY HIGH GASOLINE PRICES: Such credits would be limited to those with a gross income of $75,000 or less and the the credit program would expire year-end 2012 and be limited to one car per household.
-$30 Billion, or -$120 Billion
___________________________________
7....TAX INCENTIVES FOR STIMULATING SAVINGS FOR THOSE WITH INCOMES of $150,000 or LESS: It´s assumed net inflows of foreign capital at 1.7% of GDP in 1997 to over 6.7% of GDP in 2007 was caused by huge rise in Consumer Spending and resultant Explosion of Personal Debt in past 15 years ... thereby in turn causing collapse in Savings rate since 1997to ZERO today.
The Savings of other countries (Europe, China,) end up as investment in US Treasury Bonds as result of our extremely high consumer driven Trade Deficit.
This is a dangerous dependency as noone knows how long foreign governments will be willing to invest their surpluses in relatively low-yield bonds, especially considering US volatile economic developments and unpredictable developments in the global economy. We are at the mercy of the Arabs.
So, it´s assumed that a significant increase in Household Savings is eventually very positive for the American economy--a reason why I suggest a tax incentive to Save as well as suggest we pay for critically necessary investment in EDUCATION by floating `Invest in American Education Bonds´ where sound interest returns go to Americans rather than foreign lenders.
As in mature European countries, consistent Savings rates of 5-6% of GDP provide financial institutions and firms greater systemic Liquidity to finance in good and weaker economic times relatively healthly investment levels for productivity improvement projects, equipment, software, and future living standards. A related factor is that share prices and home prices are very unlikely to rise at double-digit rates in coming decade or more.
So Savings by individuals and firms allocated to fixed, safe (e.g., bond/401k) returns as well as to short-term interesting bank deposits (where available) will be the key to future Wealth growth for retirement of middle-class, particularly.
This also means Consumption will be structurally ±7% LESS from 70% to 72% of GDP recently to a new equilibrium of 65-67% of GDP, as Consumers retire massive debt exposure and reduce rate of spending to LESS than the growth in after-tax income. Resultant increase in system Liquidity will allow Investment to become a stronger driver of the economy (compensating for lower Consumption rate) right at a time this is so necessary!
$-45 Billion, or -$315 Billion
___________________________________
8....ADDED DEFENSE EXPENDITURES: It is assumed Marine Corps. troop forces, including related equipment and facilities, will be increased by 60,000 (as proposed by Obama if he is elected and probably supported by McCain if he is elected). (I personally don't believe we can afford this or we should explore converting surplus troops elsewhere in system to Marine troops at a lower cost. It appears like more of the typically costly political pandering, so... c'est la vie).
-$45 Billion, or $315 Billion
___________________________________
9....FUNDS NEEDED TO SHORE UP SOCIAL SECURITY: It is assumed any funds to strengthen Social Security Trust fund over next 20-25years will be obtained by lengthening the qualification age to 70 for all those under 60 in 2010. So the net effect is that no additional payroll taxes will be necessary. This needs to be finally confirmed by independent studies but I believe it is true.
-$000 Billion, or -$000 Billion
-----------------------------------
10...ADDED DEFICIT CREATED BY ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN AND HENCE LOWER TAX REVENUES THAT CANNOT BE COMPENSATED FOR ADEQUATELY BY SPENDING CUTS AND/OR REDUCED TAX RATES FOR LOWER-MIDDLE CLASS AND HIGHER RATES ON TOP INCOME EARNERS UNTIL AFTER 2012: It is assumed a large part of the forecast increase in near-term Deficits will be due to economic slowdown negatively affecting tax revenues through revenues 2012. The 2009 substantial Deficit forecast increase of $490 Billion already reflects this fact.
-$100 Billion, or -$300 Billion over 2010-12
___________________________________
SUMMARY:
AVE. ANNUAL TOTAL....-$510 Billion
2010-2016
TOTAL:.........-$2,960,000,000,000 Trillion
Plus 2009 DEFICIT: -$490 Billion
GRAND TOTAL:...-$3,450,000,000,000 Trillion
2009-2016
___________________________________
II. ADDED OFFSETTING INFLOWS ANNUALLY AND IN TOTAL 2010-2016
___________________________________
1....REDUCE DEFENSE EXPENDITURES to 3.5% of GDP (or LOWER) by 2012:
The current absolute cost level of Defense spending is a major contributor to bankrupting our Treasury and forms at least 50% of the high annual budget Deficits in recent years. It´s assumed `real cuts´ can and must be achieved by: (a) removing 80% of troops from Iraq by 2010 and retiring two/thirds of latter while redeploying the other third to Afghansistan; (b) negotiating agreement with Iraq government to reimburse the US for infrastructure reconstruction costs (not caused by American forces) and for back up troop costs in recent past and certainly future years; (c) reducing duplication (i.e., further streamlining) in operational structures of Army, Navy, Marine Corps. and Air Force troops, equipment and facilities, including proliferation of over 700bases and troop forces in Germany, Japan, and South Korea.
± $80 Billion, or $560 Billion
___________________________________
2....CONSIDER FLOATING AN `INVEST IN AMERICAN EDUCATION´ US BONDS ON ATTRACTIVE TERMS TO INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS (as I have conceptually described in earlier posts to you): Based on fair criteria, the funds so raised would be allocated to each state for improvements in Educational System as noted above. This approach avoids borrowing from foreign countries by raising funds internally and investing in ourselves whereby the interest returns go to Americans and not to foreign countries.
± $70 Billion, or $490 Billion
___________________________________
3....CANCEL BUSH TAX CUTS AS HISTORY CLEARLY SHOWS REAGAN AND BUSH JR. TAX CUTS GOING MAINLY TO TOP 10% BOOMERANGED DEFICITS AS REDUCTIONS DID NOT `TRICKLE DOWN´ TO SAVE THE REST OF SOCIETY AS EVIDENCED BY EXPLODING DEFICITS EXACERBATED BY SIMULTANEOUS HUGE INCREASE IN DEFENSE SPENDING:
The demogogic idea that reducing taxes for top 10% while doing little for the bottom 80% is a Godsend to the latter because the top 10% pay so mauch of total taxes is total NONSENSE. The rich pay a large % of taxes simply because their salary and investment incomes are so phenomenally high explaining why 85% of total is concentrated in upper class helped also by tax haven financial instruments and structures. It is assumed we must start reversing the growing inequality in Income and Wealth growth of bottom 80% of US society.
There are many ways of doing this. I favor Dr. Reich´s and Obama´s idea to reduce tax rates significantly for those earning less than $100,000 a year while increasing rates for those earning above $250,000 a year. In concert with a Tax Incentive to encourage Savings, this combination of policy changes should stimulate relatively more stable Investment as a key driver of our economy and less dependence on trivial Consumption.
This writer does not believe that Consumption at 70-72% of GDP is sustainable, especially with ZERO Savings and much needed responsible and prudent lending and credit regulations. A 70-72% Consumption level is a formula for continuing lower-middle class over-reliance on Debt to finance their standard of living while limiting bank lending for Investments due to insufficient, transparent system LIQUIDITY -- all leading to recurring economic disasters like 1990-93 Savings and Loan and current breakdown. Any future breakdown will likely be much worse than the one we are in now.
It is assumed, therefore, that over 3-4 years time Consumption will stabilize at a new equilibrium of 65-67% of GDP under a policy of adjustment in progressive tax rates or some equivalent thereof (e.g., some are suggesting expanding earned income tax credit to offset payroll taxes of the poor that typically eat up at least 15% of their stagnantly low incomes) and incentives for increased Savings.
One thing is certain, continuing Bush´s tax cuts will only benefit the already rich while lower/middle working class continue to suffer fron stagnant wages, outsourcing, downsizing, mergers and acquisition redundantcies,etc.
Expanded jobs through broad based Investments in Infrastrucrure, Education, Health Care, Energy Independence, etc., supported by higher Savings will bring a net increase in Tax Revenues beginning in 2011 through 2016. It is assumed over 2.4 million new jobs will be developed between 2011 and 2016.
This is possible WITHOUT changing Corporate Tax rates which (contrary to the Republican propaganda) are EFFECTIVELY LOWER than European rates due to complex melange of deductions and tax avoidance structures legally available (but not possible in Holland, for example, nor in most Scandinavian countries).
I also do not suggest taxing WINDFALL PROFITS on assumption US oil firms INCREASE INVESTMENTS in Alternate Energy sources to 8% of total Annual Investment budgets by 2012. Tax would be proportionately Retroactive to extent oil firms failed to meet this goal.
± $120 Billion, or $720 Billion
___________________________________
4...PARTIAL ELIMINATION OF PORK BARREL PROJECTS and REDUCTION OF OTHER DISCRETIONARY EXPENDITURES (EXCLUDING DEFENSE, SOC.SECURITY and MEDICARE): It is assumed that 5% of ± $1.2 Trillion of Discretinary expenditures is very MAXIMUM that can be reduced, or $60Billion annually, plus $20 Billion of unnecessary Pork Barrel spending (as many of these investments are essential). So there´s no BIG WASTE POT here as McCain and associates constantly say to delight of uninformed public and press.
± $80 Billion, or 480 Billion
-----------------------------------
SUMMARY:
AVE. ANNUAL TOTAL: ± $ 350 Billion 2010-2016
GRAND TOTAL: ±$2,250,000,000,000 Trillion
2010-2016
NET SHORTFALL:±$1,200,000,000,000
2010-2016 Trillion (±15%)
2009 DEFICIT ±$ 490 Billion
-----------------------------------
CONCLUSIONS:
While based on my estimates average DEFICITS decline from $490 Billion in 2009 to ±$160 Billion in years 2010-2016, the TIMING of thsse Deficits may appear roughly as follows:
2009......-$490 Billion
2010......-$400 Billion
2011......-$450 Billion
2012......-$350 Billion
2013......-$200 Billion
2014......-$100 Billion
2015......±$100 Billion
2016......±$200 Billion
TOTAL.....-$1,200,000,000,000 Trillion
Above means National Debt would increase from ± $9.5 Trillion year-end 2008 to ± $11.2 Trillion year-end 2016 ... an increase of 18 % compared over 8 years compared to 90% during Bush Jr.´s 8 years of office.
Seems overall a Very Desirable Goal, if we want to restore economic stability in our Financial House, reinforce Dollar´s value, while making innovative investments to develop Alternate Fuels, achieve Fuel Efficiency and Energy Conservation on a broad scale. This is using our unique innovative skills to solve natutal resource scarcity
problems with knowhow that can be sold around the world. At the same time we can reduce our Trade Deficit by getting away from 70% importation dependence on highly priced fossil fuels.
If we should discover a major field offshore US with our government owning a 50% share of proceeds or(the Norway model) or a Royalty payment consistent with inherent value of discovery, then this could be producing cashflows in 4-6 years time if a FLOATING OFFSHORE PRODUCTION SYSTERM for deep waters is used based on DRILL SHIPS operating at least 200 miles off the US coastline. I was one of the early originators of such a system for deep, difficult waters.
Then Deficits Shortfall noted above might be cut in half if a good discovery was made on conditions noted aboveby 2012.
But offshore drilling or not is not main purpose of my memo here.
I notice that McCain keeps saying as well as his cohort in obfuscation, Carly Fiorina, we have to get control of SPENDING... indeed we do and it´s all irresponsible Republican Party Spending we are afflicted with.
Using the historical White House Office of Management and Budget data, I summarized Historical Financial Perfromance of our government under Presidents since Pres.Johnson.
Many of you may not remember, but that data clearly shows the biggest Deficits and biggest Federal Spending history occurred by far under Republican Presidencies. So much for how we stupidly let ourselves be misled about our government´s historical financial performance.
For someone who is financially conservative, and socially progressive in the true American conservative-liberal traditions so well illustrated by Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, it´s heart-breaking to see how much the media is so ignorant of the true FACTS which allows clever manipulation of minds with simple One-Liners bearing no relation to actual Reality. But as Wolf Blitzer passively says, `it works.´
This is another part of the US cultural Dilemma where common-sense dialogue based on intelligent compromise and creativity has descended into an afterthought. It´s a Party and ideology before Country sickness that has got us into the MESS we are in today ... which shows no signs of improving.
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
Dr. Reich,
Correction; the 2010-16 $1.2 Trillion Net Shortfall of course excludes the $490 Billion 2009 Deficit.
Dr. Reich,
Minor correction 2nd paragraph under Conclusions:
... increase of 18% over 8 years compared to 90%...
Dr. Reich and Readers,
For those who have not seen TABLES 1-14 (McCAIN´s Whopper Mistake)showing history of our government's financial performance under various Presidencies (all based on The White House Office of Management and Budget data), here is TABLE 15 summarizing in another way just Federal Outlays since Pres. Johnson.
TABLE 15 relates to TABLE 3. The latter shows annual increases in Total Federal Outlays INCLUDING Defense (plus Veterans Benefits), Soc. Security, and Medicare. TABLE 15 EXCLUDES these cost items.
TABLE 15 also confirms factually that the Democratic Party has clearly NOT been the party of BIG SPENDING since Pres. Johnson´s or Pres. Carter´s terms.
Another obvious conclusion is that Republican administrations spend more on Defense than do Democratic administrations... true of Reagan´s administration even though there was no war during his term except the end of the years old Cold War.
The BIG SPENDER, BIG GOVERNMENT claims that politisized conservatives have robotically and effectively propagandized for so long to an uninformed, gullible public and media is simply ... Patently False!
___________________________________
TABLE 15: END OF TERM FEDERAL OUTLAYS AND AVE. ANNUAL INCREASES IN THESE OUTLAYS EXCLUDING DEFENSE, SOC.SECURITY/MEDICARE
-----------------------------------
End of Term %
OUTLAYS Increase
Johnson 1963-68..$60.6 bil.....9.0%
Nixon 1968-73....$99.8 bil....10.6%
Ford 1974-76....$174.2 bil....20.4%
Carter 1977-80..$285.1 bil....13.1%
Reagan 1981-84..$362.6 bil.....6.2%
Reagan 1985-88..$446.6 bil.....5.4%
Bush Sr.1989-92.$644.6 bil.....9.6%
Clinton 1993-96.$734.0 bil.....3.3%
Clinton 1997-20.$841.3 bil.....3.5%
Bush 2001-04..$1,012.5 bil.....4.7%
Bush 2005-08..$1,207.9 bil.....4.5%
___________________________________
SUMMARY:
One View:
Johnson/Carter Clinton Years...7.4%
Nixon/Ford/Reagan/Bushes Years.8.4%
Second View:
Carter/Clinton Years...........6.6%
Reagan/Bushes Years............6.1%
___________________________________
___________________________________
RESULTS: INCLUDING DEFENSE, SOC.SECURITY and MEDICARE
Carter/Clinton Years...........6.1%
Reagan/Bushes Years............6.9%
___________________________________
COMMENTS:
TABLE 15 illustrates that the 2008 Budget for Federal Outlays of $2.9 trillion becomes $1.2 trillion excluding Defense, Soc.Security, and Medicare. This is hardly a BIG WASTE POT from which to achieve substantial savings by cost cuts.
I´ve assumed cuts here of #20 billion in Pork Barrel projects plus 5% of $1.2 billion for a total of $80 billion ... a very important Savings, if achieved and achievable, but not the BIG POT McCain, Fiorina Company constantly badger erroneously to the innocent American public.
TABLE 15 also confirms that Democratic administrations are no more or less Prudent in handling Federal Outlays than Republican administrations ... all the phony claims to the contrary.
Dr. Reich and Readers,
You will note I am proposing Cuts in Soc. Security benefits by delaying Qualification for Benefits until the age of 70. This should make the fund very solvent for next 20 years. This is the solution most European countries are considering.
If not adaquate, then Americans will see an appropriate increase in Soc. Security payroll taxes and/or a CAP on Soc.Security payments to those with a net worth of over $1 million.
Mr. Frank Thomas
Brevity is the essence of quality.
I believe I speak on behlaf of many readers.
Thanks.
Dr. Reich,
Minor corrrections:
1) Section II, Point 3, the 2nd paragraph :
...explaining why 85% of total household Wealth is concentrated in upper class...
2) Conclusions: list of Deficits by Year:
2015.....+ 100 billion =)
2016.....+ 200 billion =) start of Surplus years
Dr. Reich,
Correction: Conclusions, 1st paragraph:
... $490 billion in 2009 to average of $350 billion in 2010-16 (or net average shortfall of $170 billion), the TIMING ...
Dr. Reich,
Sorry, correction to Conclusions again, 1st paragraph:
...$490 billion in 2009 to an average of +-$170 billion in years 2010-16, the TIMING ...
Re move the retirement age to 70. BLS table show unemployment at 10.3%; ShadowStats.org report 14% unemployment. You need to admit which one is correct, then you need to reduce the unemployment rate, only then can you move the retirement age to 70.
What jobs will the 70-year-old be working? Service jobs: fast food servers. Doubtful people will continue eating out. We'll see. Day care: doubtful 68 year olds will want to chase after toddlers. Elder care: maybe 68 year olds can contribute there, say they work in a hospital, nursing home, and their medical care and prescriptions are covered by the same staff. Plus you have to factor in more offshoring, if 42 million more jobs are heading offshore in the next 5 years.
Medical care and medical tourism. Given deflation and the lower cost of everything, medical costs should be falling. What does adequate care cost in India? The insurance companies and the American Medical Association probably don't want to explore (remember how they blocked Hillary care?).
This post has been removed by the author.
kayxyz,
Sorry, the REAL numbers CONTINUE TO SAY:
===========================
No recession.
===========================
FACT: The GDP is expanding.
FACT: Home values are going UP.
FACT: Personal Income is increasing faster than inflation.
FACT: Industrial Production is INCREASING.
FACT: The Unemployment Rate is NOT typical of a recession .
FACT: The very parameters used by the NBER are NOT signaling a recession!
FACT: When the REAL numbers do not comport with their propaganda, Dems turn to any number (real OR imagined) that they find emotionally satisfying.
Dr. Reich,
Correction to TABLE 15, COMMENTS,
1st Paragraph:
...of $2.9 trillion becomes $1.2 trillion excluding Defense, ...
Dr. Reich,
Correction TABLE 15, COMMENTS, 2nd paragraph:
...plus 5% of 1.2 trillion for a total of $80 billion ...
Blogger kayxyz said...
“Re move the retirement age to 70.”
This is a nonstarter. Genuine progressives would never advocate raising the retirement age to 70. The poor, women and minorities would be disproportionately effected because they’re far more dependent on Social Security for retirement income than others are. This in essence would be a regressive benefit cut.
It wouldn’t be right to prevent those who work physically demanding jobs from getting their benefits at an earlier age. Moreover, job-related stress surely contributes to disease and death for millions of Americans. Increasing the Social Security retirement age will only worsen this dynamic.
Politicians who support these benefit cuts do so at great risk. Coordinated and determined activity will be made by advocate groups to frustrate and destroy their efforts.
norsofast:
Excellent argument. All too often when viewing alternatives, parties to both sides of the issue tend to use a generic profile of all affected. No doubt, white collar workers could, if allowed by their employers, work until 70 or 75, many well into their 80s, without appreciable loss of function or efficiency. Most blue collar workers, who must possess strength and energy to complete their work, would exhibit an efficiency decline if forced to work into those ages. Further, in many instances the safety of other workers could be affected if a weak link in the chain occurred due to an aging worker.
It is common knowledge that as we age we become more susceptible to the impacts of illness. Often, colds and flu, that would have been inconveniences when we were even 55 become debilitating as we age. This would increase absentee rates and if there is no change to the current health coverage model would exert even more pressure on health care costs across the board.
Notwithstanding your point of a strong rise in resistance, extending the SS benefit age to 70 on a mandatory basis is probably not even sensible policy.
Even if we chose the life expectancy for white women that would mean only an 11 year period of retirement on average. If we use the same statistic for African American males they would be dead as soon as they became eligible for retirement.
Any rate adjustments necessary to bulk up the program would be minimal and removing or adjusting the cap could also move the critical line well into the 22nd century.
sbvor:
Your continued inability to understand the numbers you post as FACTS is laughable.
If you're gonna move the age to 70, you might as well make it 90...
Putting it close the average life expectancy means as NotSoFast has pointed out, a work force full of people trying to sweep, mob operate forklifts etc... with oxygen tanks and IVs attached.
Those that suffer a health set back will not able to recover. Those that can't work will become homeless.
Why not just remove the earnings cap on SS? Or bump it higher? When was the last time the earnings cap was adjusted for inflation?
weaseldog:
Don't recall what it's indexed to but the cap rises every year.
To Notsofast,
Regarding Soc. Security long-term solvency, a variation on the age 70qualification timing would be to allow discounted (reduced)benefits at age 67 until 70, but then allow full benefits. Also allow full benefits at 65 for claimers who are certified physically or mentally incapacitated. Of course, simplest, sensitive solution may be to simply increase payroll taxes.
Does anyone know what the nature or approximate scope of the near or long-term Soc. Security solvency problem really is? What's the financial too short exposure here?
Robert Reich
Enjoy your vacation
Upon your return I will send you my work with NIOSH as the only MD on a team that was studying Organization of Work(OOW) and health outcomes
My health care reform proposal?- "Good healthy safe and meaningful job for all"
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
ralippin@aol.com
From angrybear.com on What the Oil Companies did last year with their money. Most went to stock buyback. Only single digits went to new exploration.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/
For notsofast: i did not try to link older age to physical ability. My heroic ancestor moved from North Carolina to Kentucky at age 76, built a new sawmill, shelter to live in, and home. Of course, he was in great shape, and he also had friends and family if he wanted help.
There will have to be some personal and professional assessment of ability. The workman's comp portion of an elder getting hurt on the job would be another grand canyon of regulation.
Isn't raising the retirement age to 70 a red herring? You're talking about that instead of talking about eliminating the upper income cap on social security tax. It would, no doubt, fix funding problems for Social Security. But about a million upwardly mobile people would really gripe about it.
Weaseldog:
The SS cap was $96,000 last year. It is $102,000 this year. I believe it was $90,000 in the year before last. That is 6% a year for the last two years...quite a bit more than inflation.
Anonymous Matt
Also, speaking as one of those "upwardly mobile" people, I am not necessarily adverse to increasing the cap or eliminating it altogether, provided there is an increased benefit at the end.
Does anyone else get that stupid statement once a quarter? Right now it says that I've earned enough to qualify for $X benefit, which I assume is the present value of some future number...i.e. if it says $2,000, Does that mean that I would get 2,000 about 20 years from now or is it whatever the inflation adjusted $2,000 would be?
Anonymous Matt
People have to decide what is important to them. I decided that time was more important than money and became a teacher. I have tons of holidays, tenured job, and great benefits. The salary is also high in good districts. I would never work in a business job in America. My brother does that and it is slave labor. No amount of money is worth not being around for your family. Forget it. Europeans are more educated and they won't allow their politicians and big corporations to bully them or dictate their lives. Most Americans are "dumb" compared to Europeans, and that is what they get for being uneducated. Sad to say. Things won't change, if fact they are getting worse. Pick your career wisely.
The Chinese live like rats. A small minority of them make a decent wage but millions live on a dollar a day. They will never live like we do on average. There are simply too many people. I hate all of this China b.s. Yes, they will be rich as a group, but individually with pollution, overcrowding, forget it....I would never want to live there. The best life to be had is in northern Europe, and that life is slowly deteriorating away. Mr. Reich, Barbara Ehrenreich and others are dreamers. The world is becoming more Capitalistic not less so. Look at China. Killer Capitalism has won. Some will have fantastic lives while most will have lives in s---. That is the way the world has been for thousands of years. The broad middle class was just a short flicker in the span of history. Prepare for the meltdown.
Matt:
Nice try but we are not negotiating here. You'll take the tax increase and like it. By the time you retire we'll be means testing benefit payouts anyway.
Invest wisely!
Art:
Isn't everything a negotiation?
AM
Matt:
Perhaps at some level.
Problem is, generally, we, the most affected, are not involved in the negotiation. As in this case we merely await the winds of change.
The good news; since I have retired and am collecting my benefits a few years prior to the age of 70, I can be somewhat ambivalent about raising the age, raising the cap or raising the FICA rate.
Nonchalance can be a wonderful feeling.
It will be interesting, once the SS cap is altered or the tax rate increased, how well your negotiations proceed.
Keep us informed. ;)
Art:
LOL. I'm not holding my breath.
AM
Thanks folks for answering my question on the SS cap.
So it's not really a third rail. It can be changed,
If it's at $102,000 then I can't see why it would be a hardship to change it to $250,000 or more.
As to increased benefits based on the cap increase...
I think that might depend on what the increased benefits might be.
If it's a choice between some benefits and no benefits, as many are portraying the problem, then isn't something better than nothing?
weaseldog:
You're trying to inject reason into a totally emotional blog.
Weasel:
You're probably right. Back to Art's earlier recommendation...invest wisely.
AM
Weasel:
I think the impact of raising the cap above 102 depends on where you live. It probably isn't that big of a deal, and only mildly annoying, to someone with that income who lives in Dallas or Kansas City. However, it could pose a problem for somone who lives in a high cost area like New York or California where that extra few thousand a year in their pocket can really make a difference.
hum!!
Have a great vacation, I too is always stuck at work. How sad.
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信,徵信網,徵信社,徵信社,感情挽回,婚姻挽回,挽回婚姻,挽回感情,徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信,捉姦,徵信公司,通姦,通姦罪,抓姦,抓猴,捉猴,捉姦,監聽,調查跟蹤,反跟蹤,外遇問題,徵信,捉姦,女人徵信,女子徵信,外遇問題,女子徵信, 外遇,徵信公司,徵信網,外遇蒐證,抓姦,抓猴,捉猴, 調查跟蹤,反跟蹤,感情挽回,挽回感情,婚姻挽回,挽回婚姻,外遇沖開,抓姦, 女子徵信,外遇蒐證,外遇,通姦,通姦罪,贍養費,徵信,徵信社,抓姦,徵信,徵信公司,徵信社,徵信公司,徵信社,徵信公司,女人徵信,
徵信,徵信網,徵信社, 徵信網,外遇,徵信,徵信社,抓姦,徵信,女人徵信,徵信社,女人徵信社,外遇,抓姦,徵信公司,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,女人徵信社,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信,女子徵信社,女子徵信社,女子徵信社,女子徵信社, 徵信,徵信社, 徵信,徵信社, 徵信社,
徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信社,徵信,外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社,徵信,徵信, 徵信,外遇, 抓姦
徵徵徵徵徵徵徵信徵徵徵徵徵徵外遇抓姦離婚婚前徵信工商徵信尋人大陸抓姦法律諮詢家暴徵徵徵徵婚前徵信工商徵信外遇抓姦尋人離婚家暴大陸抓姦感情挽回徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵
徵徵徵徵徵婚姻挽回徵徵徵徵徵大陸抓姦徵徵徵尋人徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵
徵徵徵徵徵徵大陸抓姦徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵,徵信,徵信社
I was passing over the blogs, i found this one to be most suitable for me...thanks for the post,,,
Post a Comment
<< Home