Inflation Thread

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
When I was going to college in fall of 1989, I explicitly remember my dad stating to me when discussing taking out a student loan......"You should take out as much as you can because you are never going to get $$ at that low of an interest rate in the future."

The interest rates for student loans was at 8% at that time. Ha!

Insane. I consolidated my law school loans before I graduated because there was a deal back then where if you paid THREE payments on time and did auto deduct your rate was 1.625%. I got it on a 20 or 25 year plan and it was like $200 a month. My wife finally made me pay it off because she got sick of seeing the money going out of the account and didn't trust my plan to YOLO the amount on AIG stock. I remember taking the payoff letter to work and showing the kids who graduated a few years later. Man, those kids got fucked. Commissar Obama had changed the student loan program so that the entire loan base was designed to subsidize anyone who earned below a certain amount so the low earners didn't have to pay back their loans at all. The rate was 6.8%. There was one kid who went to University of Chicago who had a $270k principal on his loans just from law school. At 6.8%. I can't fathom the level of desperation that would create. So of course I showed him my payoff letter and told him awesome Dubya was.
 

SwirlinLingerie

Well-Known Member
If you're combining you're golden, if you're downsizing you probably gotta go new construction. My old man was saying that in the early '80's when rates went way up it caused the housing inventory to get even worse because people with "cheap" 8% mortgages weren't gonna sell no matter what because the mortgage was such a good deal. Nationwide average 30 year rate is now over 5.5%. My buddy closed on a place in December and is at 3.25%. On 400k borrowed that is over a $500 difference per month.
Ok, related question. Major financial and family decisions ahead - this forum seems like the right place to get the reasonable, well thought out advice we all need. So here goes. We live in a pretty average suburban neighborhood of a major metro area in the Pac-NW. The area has completely blown up - basically like San Fran a couple decades ago. Some of buying a house in this specific area 7 or 8 years ago was solid speculation on our part, some of it was just good fortune.

Early to mid 40s, three kids (elementary school for two, one's not even there yet), good schools, we love the outdoor opportunities around here, etc. We're locked in at a super low rate, but we'll still be paying off our mortgage for years (put down 20%). We'd probably need to add a room or two on if we stayed here long term and raised three teenagers in this house (so more housing costs).

Both our careers are pretty flexible. Long term, we'd likely have more career opportunities and make better money out here than in the midwest, but given how my job/field has essentially become remote I'm not sure how large that gap is.

So I keep playing with this idea of selling our house and buying one in Iowa City for cash, and being done with mortgages for good. We'd even have some leftover for additional investments. It's been in the back of my mind for a couple years now, but feels like the ideal window might be starting to close. We'd probably want to move while the oldest still had a year or two of elementary before junior high, and I have a feeling that house values in our neighborhood might be peaking right now. Just seems ridiculously high with mortgage rates climbing and some potential economic turmoil on the horizon. Plus when Ogundele blows up the next couple years I'd like to see him play live a time or two.

What you all think? A move would probably change the retirement formula for me given no more mortgage. Now the right time? Or maybe houses only continues to sky rocket out here so give it another year. Or just realize we're happy and enjoying the life we've made, so don't mess it up.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
Ok, related question. Major financial and family decisions ahead - this forum seems like the right place to get the reasonable, well thought out advice we all need. So here goes. We live in a pretty average suburban neighborhood of a major metro area in the Pac-NW. The area has completely blown up - basically like San Fran a couple decades ago. Some of buying a house in this specific area 7 or 8 years ago was solid speculation on our part, some of it was just good fortune.

Early to mid 40s, three kids (elementary school for two, one's not even there yet), good schools, we love the outdoor opportunities around here, etc. We're locked in at a super low rate, but we'll still be paying off our mortgage for years (put down 20%). We'd probably need to add a room or two on if we stayed here long term and raised three teenagers in this house (so more housing costs).

Both our careers are pretty flexible. Long term, we'd likely have more career opportunities and make better money out here than in the midwest, but given how my job/field has essentially become remote I'm not sure how large that gap is.

So I keep playing with this idea of selling our house and buying one in Iowa City for cash, and being done with mortgages for good. We'd even have some leftover for additional investments. It's been in the back of my mind for a couple years now, but feels like the ideal window might be starting to close. We'd probably want to move while the oldest still had a year or two of elementary before junior high, and I have a feeling that house values in our neighborhood might be peaking right now. Just seems ridiculously high with mortgage rates climbing and some potential economic turmoil on the horizon. Plus when Ogundele blows up the next couple years I'd like to see him play live a time or two.

What you all think? A move would probably change the retirement formula for me given no more mortgage. Now the right time? Or maybe houses only continues to sky rocket out here so give it another year. Or just realize we're happy and enjoying the life we've made, so don't mess it up.
Enjoy life where you want it. Regardless of whether home prices go up or down, much of the Pacific NW will always be more valuable than IC. Whether prices are peaking or not, things will change and you can't predict it except the P NW will always likely be more of a draw.

Also, if you want to live close to grandkids where will your kids as adults likely live?

I have lived long term in a very very nice community near a Big University. We would like to move west, but can't due to the costs which don't keep up. Our community keeps building and building and building so it's hard to get any real traction on housing. Even parts of Iowa are more expensive due to historic lack of building and increased demand.

Make life what you want it to be. It's impossible to predict but as older and mid boomers get older, there's gonna be a glut of housing available in places. I've watched my in laws buy in a nice coastal CA community and they struggled and struggled. Crap, now their property is worth so much they have no want. Biggest issue now is jerk brother in law is plotting on how to screw the other family members out of inheritance. Life always has problems. Do it how you want.
 

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
Ok, related question. Major financial and family decisions ahead - this forum seems like the right place to get the reasonable, well thought out advice we all need. So here goes. We live in a pretty average suburban neighborhood of a major metro area in the Pac-NW. The area has completely blown up - basically like San Fran a couple decades ago. Some of buying a house in this specific area 7 or 8 years ago was solid speculation on our part, some of it was just good fortune.

Early to mid 40s, three kids (elementary school for two, one's not even there yet), good schools, we love the outdoor opportunities around here, etc. We're locked in at a super low rate, but we'll still be paying off our mortgage for years (put down 20%). We'd probably need to add a room or two on if we stayed here long term and raised three teenagers in this house (so more housing costs).

Both our careers are pretty flexible. Long term, we'd likely have more career opportunities and make better money out here than in the midwest, but given how my job/field has essentially become remote I'm not sure how large that gap is.

So I keep playing with this idea of selling our house and buying one in Iowa City for cash, and being done with mortgages for good. We'd even have some leftover for additional investments. It's been in the back of my mind for a couple years now, but feels like the ideal window might be starting to close. We'd probably want to move while the oldest still had a year or two of elementary before junior high, and I have a feeling that house values in our neighborhood might be peaking right now. Just seems ridiculously high with mortgage rates climbing and some potential economic turmoil on the horizon. Plus when Ogundele blows up the next couple years I'd like to see him play live a time or two.

What you all think? A move would probably change the retirement formula for me given no more mortgage. Now the right time? Or maybe houses only continues to sky rocket out here so give it another year. Or just realize we're happy and enjoying the life we've made, so don't mess it up.

I'd probably stay in Seattle or Portland or wherever it is. Yeah, I get that remote work is a huge buzzword right now, but I have a baaaaad feeling shit is getting ready to go totally tits up in the next 12-18 months and the absolute last thing you want to do is be in Iowa City if that happens. Let's say we see a market drawdown on par with 2008 as the Fed tightens. Downsizing will occur. Bankers will bank, consultants will consult, etc. "Why have things gotten so bad?" manager will ask consultant. Consultant will say "well, it is abundantly clear that you fine managers, who are among the best in the business, are not optimizing cross functional synergies through rationalized use of collaborative resources." Next comes the memo from HR "All employees must be physically present in the office two/three days per week and available for in person meetings blah blah blah." And with that, remote work will be forever altered. Sure, you won't have to fight traffic everyday, but you will need to live somewhere near the office. "Okay Mr. Bob the Consultant, but what do we with people who refuse to come back?" "Easy, those people will be deemed to have voluntarily quit and then you don't have to pay severance. You can rationalize expenses and restructure and the troublemakers will weed themselves out."

There's a tight labor market right now that lets people say "fuck that, I ain't going into work" but the Bill Lumberghs of the world need their ring kissed everyday and the moment the labor market flips, you can bet your ass those guys will want enough ring kissing to make up for the 26 months of ring kissing they've missed. This shit is always cyclical. Always. And when the cycle flips you want to be somewhere with abundant career options.

Now, the counterpoint. Sit down. You're in your 40's. You're a fucking dinosaur. At some point when you near 50 unless you have been tapped to be the next EVP on the potential CEO succession plan track, there's a non-zero chance they're gonna throw your ass to the curb. It's like clockwork. Almost everyone who makes solid coin basically needs to be prepared for involuntary retirement at around 50 unless they are in healthcare or own a business and control their own destiny. This shit has been going on for 40 years in the US so no one can act shocked by it, but damned near everyone is. At some point in the next decade you are gonna get your interview with "the Bobs" and your name is gonna end up on the wrong list. Now when that happens, do you want to be in IC or in the PNW? If you're in IC with no mortgage, when that day comes you are gonna feel a lot better than you will if you have a mortgage payment, giant tax bill and a team of contractors standing in your living room building an extra room onto your house. I don't know your industry, career, company or department, only you can look at it and determine if that is a real risk, but ask yourself if you are gonna get moved up or moved out when they do the next round of restructuring or management changes. My brother had been at a place for 20+ years and was completely on the rock star track until the CEO changed and then he saw himself getting set up for "50 year old exit" and he wisely filed a complaint and got a phat settlement. But he's gay and doesn't have any kids, so he had a basis for a complaint and no other mouths to feed. You really have to analyze this and it should guide your decision-making process. Shit, maybe I just talked myself into IC.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
I'd probably stay in Seattle or Portland or wherever it is. Yeah, I get that remote work is a huge buzzword right now, but I have a baaaaad feeling shit is getting ready to go totally tits up in the next 12-18 months and the absolute last thing you want to do is be in Iowa City if that happens. Let's say we see a market drawdown on par with 2008 as the Fed tightens. Downsizing will occur. Bankers will bank, consultants will consult, etc. "Why have things gotten so bad?" manager will ask consultant. Consultant will say "well, it is abundantly clear that you fine managers, who are among the best in the business, are not optimizing cross functional synergies through rationalized use of collaborative resources." Next comes the memo from HR "All employees must be physically present in the office two/three days per week and available for in person meetings blah blah blah." And with that, remote work will be forever altered. Sure, you won't have to fight traffic everyday, but you will need to live somewhere near the office. "Okay Mr. Bob the Consultant, but what do we with people who refuse to come back?" "Easy, those people will be deemed to have voluntarily quit and then you don't have to pay severance. You can rationalize expenses and restructure and the troublemakers will weed themselves out."

There's a tight labor market right now that lets people say "fuck that, I ain't going into work" but the Bill Lumberghs of the world need their ring kissed everyday and the moment the labor market flips, you can bet your ass those guys will want enough ring kissing to make up for the 26 months of ring kissing they've missed. This shit is always cyclical. Always. And when the cycle flips you want to be somewhere with abundant career options.

Now, the counterpoint. Sit down. You're in your 40's. You're a fucking dinosaur. At some point when you near 50 unless you have been tapped to be the next EVP on the potential CEO succession plan track, there's a non-zero chance they're gonna throw your ass to the curb. It's like clockwork. Almost everyone who makes solid coin basically needs to be prepared for involuntary retirement at around 50 unless they are in healthcare or own a business and control their own destiny. This shit has been going on for 40 years in the US so no one can act shocked by it, but damned near everyone is. At some point in the next decade you are gonna get your interview with "the Bobs" and your name is gonna end up on the wrong list. Now when that happens, do you want to be in IC or in the PNW? If you're in IC with no mortgage, when that day comes you are gonna feel a lot better than you will if you have a mortgage payment, giant tax bill and a team of contractors standing in your living room building an extra room onto your house. I don't know your industry, career, company or department, only you can look at it and determine if that is a real risk, but ask yourself if you are gonna get moved up or moved out when they do the next round of restructuring or management changes. My brother had been at a place for 20+ years and was completely on the rock star track until the CEO changed and then he saw himself getting set up for "50 year old exit" and he wisely filed a complaint and got a phat settlement. But he's gay and doesn't have any kids, so he had a basis for a complaint and no other mouths to feed. You really have to analyze this and it should guide your decision-making process. Shit, maybe I just talked myself into IC.
Agree with a lot in this. However, older workers are doing OK compared to norms. Prior to the covid economy, most workers never make 60 and most of the time it's not their choosing. 50 depends on a lot including what the salary is. I"m a gen xer and I get so tired of hearing about being too old for tech. That's hogwash. Gen Xers are consistently fixing their millennial kids tech and getting it to work.

I've been debt free for some time, even after raising a bunch of kids (well a couple are still here) but in college. Being debt free is really freeing and I don't particularly like Dave Ramsey.
 

MelroseHawkins

Well-Known Member
Ok, related question. Major financial and family decisions ahead - this forum seems like the right place to get the reasonable, well thought out advice we all need. So here goes. We live in a pretty average suburban neighborhood of a major metro area in the Pac-NW. The area has completely blown up - basically like San Fran a couple decades ago. Some of buying a house in this specific area 7 or 8 years ago was solid speculation on our part, some of it was just good fortune.

Early to mid 40s, three kids (elementary school for two, one's not even there yet), good schools, we love the outdoor opportunities around here, etc. We're locked in at a super low rate, but we'll still be paying off our mortgage for years (put down 20%). We'd probably need to add a room or two on if we stayed here long term and raised three teenagers in this house (so more housing costs).

Both our careers are pretty flexible. Long term, we'd likely have more career opportunities and make better money out here than in the midwest, but given how my job/field has essentially become remote I'm not sure how large that gap is.

So I keep playing with this idea of selling our house and buying one in Iowa City for cash, and being done with mortgages for good. We'd even have some leftover for additional investments. It's been in the back of my mind for a couple years now, but feels like the ideal window might be starting to close. We'd probably want to move while the oldest still had a year or two of elementary before junior high, and I have a feeling that house values in our neighborhood might be peaking right now. Just seems ridiculously high with mortgage rates climbing and some potential economic turmoil on the horizon. Plus when Ogundele blows up the next couple years I'd like to see him play live a time or two.

What you all think? A move would probably change the retirement formula for me given no more mortgage. Now the right time? Or maybe houses only continues to sky rocket out here so give it another year. Or just realize we're happy and enjoying the life we've made, so don't mess it up.

To be honest with you, I think you've made your mind up but are just hesitant to pull the trigger.

You really didn't mention one solid reason for staying that moves the needle anyway. You've checked all the boxes for making the move. If you can sell out and get out of that mess, which sounds to be only going to get worse, and move and pay cash for a house an live comfortably.......................what would keep you. Why continue to pay all that interest on a mortgage?

I guess if it's worth it to live that close to Puget's Sound and you like the outdoor life there much better, that's the determining factor you have to evaluate.
 

MelroseHawkins

Well-Known Member
I'd probably stay in Seattle or Portland or wherever it is. Yeah, I get that remote work is a huge buzzword right now, but I have a baaaaad feeling shit is getting ready to go totally tits up in the next 12-18 months and the absolute last thing you want to do is be in Iowa City if that happens. Let's say we see a market drawdown on par with 2008 as the Fed tightens. Downsizing will occur. Bankers will bank, consultants will consult, etc. "Why have things gotten so bad?" manager will ask consultant. Consultant will say "well, it is abundantly clear that you fine managers, who are among the best in the business, are not optimizing cross functional synergies through rationalized use of collaborative resources." Next comes the memo from HR "All employees must be physically present in the office two/three days per week and available for in person meetings blah blah blah." And with that, remote work will be forever altered. Sure, you won't have to fight traffic everyday, but you will need to live somewhere near the office. "Okay Mr. Bob the Consultant, but what do we with people who refuse to come back?" "Easy, those people will be deemed to have voluntarily quit and then you don't have to pay severance. You can rationalize expenses and restructure and the troublemakers will weed themselves out."

There's a tight labor market right now that lets people say "fuck that, I ain't going into work" but the Bill Lumberghs of the world need their ring kissed everyday and the moment the labor market flips, you can bet your ass those guys will want enough ring kissing to make up for the 26 months of ring kissing they've missed. This shit is always cyclical. Always. And when the cycle flips you want to be somewhere with abundant career options.

Now, the counterpoint. Sit down. You're in your 40's. You're a fucking dinosaur. At some point when you near 50 unless you have been tapped to be the next EVP on the potential CEO succession plan track, there's a non-zero chance they're gonna throw your ass to the curb. It's like clockwork. Almost everyone who makes solid coin basically needs to be prepared for involuntary retirement at around 50 unless they are in healthcare or own a business and control their own destiny. This shit has been going on for 40 years in the US so no one can act shocked by it, but damned near everyone is. At some point in the next decade you are gonna get your interview with "the Bobs" and your name is gonna end up on the wrong list. Now when that happens, do you want to be in IC or in the PNW? If you're in IC with no mortgage, when that day comes you are gonna feel a lot better than you will if you have a mortgage payment, giant tax bill and a team of contractors standing in your living room building an extra room onto your house. I don't know your industry, career, company or department, only you can look at it and determine if that is a real risk, but ask yourself if you are gonna get moved up or moved out when they do the next round of restructuring or management changes. My brother had been at a place for 20+ years and was completely on the rock star track until the CEO changed and then he saw himself getting set up for "50 year old exit" and he wisely filed a complaint and got a phat settlement. But he's gay and doesn't have any kids, so he had a basis for a complaint and no other mouths to feed. You really have to analyze this and it should guide your decision-making process. Shit, maybe I just talked myself into IC.

Lol. Fuck, I'm now 50 and on my 29th year at this one job. Should I be worried?

You're scaring me!
 

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
Agree with a lot in this. However, older workers are doing OK compared to norms. Prior to the covid economy, most workers never make 60 and most of the time it's not their choosing. 50 depends on a lot including what the salary is. I"m a gen xer and I get so tired of hearing about being too old for tech. That's hogwash. Gen Xers are consistently fixing their millennial kids tech and getting it to work.

I've been debt free for some time, even after raising a bunch of kids (well a couple are still here) but in college. Being debt free is really freeing and I don't particularly like Dave Ramsey.

Yeah, it depends on salary, which is why I said if the guy makes solid coin. I think with the prolonged massive economic runup it somewhat muted the issue, but when shit hits the fan, which I expect it to, the very first thing companies do is start shitcanning everyone near 50 and above and replacing them with younger workers. Is that a good idea? No, it probably isn't, but if I can shitcan a guy making $250k all in and replace him with a guy making $100k all in and then multiply by X00 across the company and get a bonus for saving money, fucking A I'm going to do it. The managers don't give a shit if they turn it into an even bigger shitshow because no one knows what they're doing. They're all hoping they'll be at a bigger and better company in 18 months anyway. These people are all fucking grifters who have no sense of institutional loyalty.

I changed jobs several years ago and had two weeks off with no blackberry/iPhone and it was glorious. I went golfing at a few municipal courses up on the north shore of Chicago on weekday afternoons and it was the same fucking story over and over with the randos I got grouped with. "Yeah, I was an IT guy at Goldman and I worked on systems to connect with the Merc and I got fired when I was 52 and replaced by some 23 year old." "I was a trader at Morgan Stanley and got fired when I was 49 and replaced by a computer program and 22 year old kid." "I was an accountant at XYZ Pharma and got shitcanned when I was 51 and replaced by an H1B from the Philippines." It is definitely more prevalent in giant companies, I don't think the risk is nearly as great if you're at a 100 person manufacturing company or something like that. Huge companies view "human resources" as effectively fungible and when someone gets annual merit and longevity raises they eventually price themselves out of the market for their own jobs.
 

SwirlinLingerie

Well-Known Member
I'd probably stay in Seattle or Portland or wherever it is. Yeah, I get that remote work is a huge buzzword right now, but I have a baaaaad feeling shit is getting ready to go totally tits up in the next 12-18 months and the absolute last thing you want to do is be in Iowa City if that happens. Let's say we see a market drawdown on par with 2008 as the Fed tightens. Downsizing will occur. Bankers will bank, consultants will consult, etc. "Why have things gotten so bad?" manager will ask consultant. Consultant will say "well, it is abundantly clear that you fine managers, who are among the best in the business, are not optimizing cross functional synergies through rationalized use of collaborative resources." Next comes the memo from HR "All employees must be physically present in the office two/three days per week and available for in person meetings blah blah blah." And with that, remote work will be forever altered. Sure, you won't have to fight traffic everyday, but you will need to live somewhere near the office. "Okay Mr. Bob the Consultant, but what do we with people who refuse to come back?" "Easy, those people will be deemed to have voluntarily quit and then you don't have to pay severance. You can rationalize expenses and restructure and the troublemakers will weed themselves out."

There's a tight labor market right now that lets people say "fuck that, I ain't going into work" but the Bill Lumberghs of the world need their ring kissed everyday and the moment the labor market flips, you can bet your ass those guys will want enough ring kissing to make up for the 26 months of ring kissing they've missed. This shit is always cyclical. Always. And when the cycle flips you want to be somewhere with abundant career options.

Now, the counterpoint. Sit down. You're in your 40's. You're a fucking dinosaur. At some point when you near 50 unless you have been tapped to be the next EVP on the potential CEO succession plan track, there's a non-zero chance they're gonna throw your ass to the curb. It's like clockwork. Almost everyone who makes solid coin basically needs to be prepared for involuntary retirement at around 50 unless they are in healthcare or own a business and control their own destiny. This shit has been going on for 40 years in the US so no one can act shocked by it, but damned near everyone is. At some point in the next decade you are gonna get your interview with "the Bobs" and your name is gonna end up on the wrong list. Now when that happens, do you want to be in IC or in the PNW? If you're in IC with no mortgage, when that day comes you are gonna feel a lot better than you will if you have a mortgage payment, giant tax bill and a team of contractors standing in your living room building an extra room onto your house. I don't know your industry, career, company or department, only you can look at it and determine if that is a real risk, but ask yourself if you are gonna get moved up or moved out when they do the next round of restructuring or management changes. My brother had been at a place for 20+ years and was completely on the rock star track until the CEO changed and then he saw himself getting set up for "50 year old exit" and he wisely filed a complaint and got a phat settlement. But he's gay and doesn't have any kids, so he had a basis for a complaint and no other mouths to feed. You really have to analyze this and it should guide your decision-making process. Shit, maybe I just talked myself
All that shit is true regardless of geography though. And you are right about corporations continually phasing out older and more costly employees. But they are also doing the same thing with buildings. They've figured out profits didn't take a hit - actually hit record levels - despite not forcing people to come into big rectangular boxes in order to log on. A lot of companies have already downsized their footprint - keep a trendy spot or two, let the millennials come in and play ping pong and mingle or whatever - but no need to keep a bigger space than what can accommodate most people coming in once or twice a week. There aren't many Lumberghs left looking over Peter's shoulders, because Lumbergh was fucking expensive too and Covid revealed that guy didn't really do anything other than drink his coffee and hover over people.

I haven't worked in the same office as my manager/boss in a decade, and haven't been in an office 5 days a week for probably 6 or 7 years. And most the people I've managed have been based in places like Chicago in recent years. If I lost my job at some point while living in Iowa City, I doubt I'd be applying for gigs there. Not that I'd mind - it's just there are so many more jobs out there that aren't fixed to a certain geography, that from a pure numbers game it seems I'd be more likely to find something that wasn't local (especially if I was willing to travel from time to time).

That said, being somewhere with abundant career opportunities is helpful for networking. Regularly interacting with folks in an office (even if only a couple times a week) creates a decent network in of itself, and you always have more leverage being based somewhere with more options and a higher cost of living/pay.

Also, you need to get away from your phone more often (so do I). If you are romanticizing about the couple weeks you were free from it several years back, why not try to replicate that more often? I know, it's tough...but sounds like you put a pretty high value on that experience. You should shoot for it more often.
 

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
All that shit is true regardless of geography though. And you are right about corporations continually phasing out older and more costly employees. But they are also doing the same thing with buildings. They've figured out profits didn't take a hit - actually hit record levels - despite not forcing people to come into big rectangular boxes in order to log on. A lot of companies have already downsized their footprint - keep a trendy spot or two, let the millennials come in and play ping pong and mingle or whatever - but no need to keep a bigger space than what can accommodate most people coming in once or twice a week. There aren't many Lumberghs left looking over Peter's shoulders, because Lumbergh was fucking expensive too and Covid revealed that guy didn't really do anything other than drink his coffee and hover over people.

I haven't worked in the same office as my manager/boss in a decade, and haven't been in an office 5 days a week for probably 6 or 7 years. And most the people I've managed have been based in places like Chicago in recent years. If I lost my job at some point while living in Iowa City, I doubt I'd be applying for gigs there. Not that I'd mind - it's just there are so many more jobs out there that aren't fixed to a certain geography, that from a pure numbers game it seems I'd be more likely to find something that wasn't local (especially if I was willing to travel from time to time).

That said, being somewhere with abundant career opportunities is helpful for networking. Regularly interacting with folks in an office (even if only a couple times a week) creates a decent network in of itself, and you always have more leverage being based somewhere with more options and a higher cost of living/pay.

Also, you need to get away from your phone more often (so do I). If you are romanticizing about the couple weeks you were free from it several years back, why not try to replicate that more often? I know, it's tough...but sounds like you put a pretty high value on that experience. You should shoot for it more often.

I moved to the South 4 years ago and almost never check my phone after 7 or on weekends anymore. People can text me if they need immediate help, which is rare.

My concern with the move is primarily the network. And I have concern that the past 10 years may not be a good benchmark. This shit moves in waves. Yes, companies save money by vacating real estate, but when shit hits the fan, the consultants have to come up with shit to change and their banker hombres who are sitting on massive losses on shitpaper mortgages on commercial buildings are going to create some sort of "rubbing elbows more often" buzzword. I envision a horrific office of the future similar to what consultants have where you just have a cubicle with an outlet. The upside is you won't have to be there much. Everything went through the roof because the Fed printed so much money. They're talking about a 5 trillion dollar balance sheet unwind. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
I moved to the South 4 years ago and almost never check my phone after 7 or on weekends anymore. People can text me if they need immediate help, which is rare.

My concern with the move is primarily the network. And I have concern that the past 10 years may not be a good benchmark. This shit moves in waves. Yes, companies save money by vacating real estate, but when shit hits the fan, the consultants have to come up with shit to change and their banker hombres who are sitting on massive losses on shitpaper mortgages on commercial buildings are going to create some sort of "rubbing elbows more often" buzzword. I envision a horrific office of the future similar to what consultants have where you just have a cubicle with an outlet. The upside is you won't have to be there much. Everything went through the roof because the Fed printed so much money. They're talking about a 5 trillion dollar balance sheet unwind. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.
Are you referring to Elliott Waves? Interesting theory, but we really don't have enough data to make much out of it other than common sense.

Technicals are based on human behavior which you can't predict. For example, who would have thought Bush would go along with the Wall Street bailouts and takeovers.

The US controls the financial world and China hasn't figured out how to really undo that and due to politics may not be motivated enough. Some see Putin as someone who wants to undo the US financial hegemony. He's mostly undoing himself and his nation (mafia) and backing himself into a corner. Not sure everyday people really understand what the risk is here.

The US not being tied to Russian oil is in a much better position to challenge Putin. Germany, France, Spain, Italy have done nothing really. Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Baltics are taking it seriously for good reason as well as Finland, all countries that have felt the power of what is now Russia before. I absolutely do not like Trump, but I can see what he saw in NATO. Why are we defending west Europe as they wouldn't do it for the US and neither would the Aussies based on history until they knew who was going to win. They have to deal with China. Japan, China, GB, S K, and Tawain may be our only real allies and that is mostly because of China which leaves GB as maybe our only real ally.

Biden recently starting refilling the strategic oil reserve. We'd like to think it is to help the consumer, but it's main purpose is military-oriented.

This is going to be an interesting point in history for sure.

On a side note, Iowa, IL and Missouri are likely to not be where you want to be in a major nuclear war. Oregon is probably a better choice...
 

MelroseHawkins

Well-Known Member
Are you referring to Elliott Waves? Interesting theory, but we really don't have enough data to make much out of it other than common sense.

Technicals are based on human behavior which you can't predict. For example, who would have thought Bush would go along with the Wall Street bailouts and takeovers.

The US controls the financial world and China hasn't figured out how to really undo that and due to politics may not be motivated enough. Some see Putin as someone who wants to undo the US financial hegemony. He's mostly undoing himself and his nation (mafia) and backing himself into a corner. Not sure everyday people really understand what the risk is here.

The US not being tied to Russian oil is in a much better position to challenge Putin. Germany, France, Spain, Italy have done nothing really. Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Baltics are taking it seriously for good reason as well as Finland, all countries that have felt the power of what is now Russia before. I absolutely do not like Trump, but I can see what he saw in NATO. Why are we defending west Europe as they wouldn't do it for the US and neither would the Aussies based on history until they knew who was going to win. They have to deal with China. Japan, China, GB, S K, and Tawain may be our only real allies and that is mostly because of China which leaves GB as maybe our only real ally.

Biden recently starting refilling the strategic oil reserve. We'd like to think it is to help the consumer, but it's main purpose is military-oriented.

This is going to be an interesting point in history for sure.

On a side note, Iowa, IL and Missouri are likely to not be where you want to be in a major nuclear war. Oregon is probably a better choice...

I really have concern about China's influence in Mexico and possibly using that to infiltrate the US. They already are with the Cartel's and moving Fentanyl and other illegals drugs to the US. What could stop them from using Mexico to access our Southern border if a war were to happen.

If you look at the US or North America (US-Canada-Mexico) we have pretty good east and west border cushions with two huge oceans. The US is pretty difficult to attack militarily with Mexico as a cushion to our south and Canada for our Northern border. So, I think we in the US are a difficult country to attack and we have good neighbors. Again, my concern would be China being able to influence and/or infilt Mexico. Regardless, if either Canada or Mexico started to get infiltrated, that would give the US time to get the ducks in a row to defend ourselves.

Also, other countries would have to be very leery about coming onto US ground for a ground attack. We have a terrific military, but, our best defense may be that our citizens are armed. Just the shear numbers of people armed would make it difficult for an invasion from another country. People are on both sides of the gun control issue, but don't look past how the 2nd amendment in this country plays into us defending our country. Hope it never gets to that, but that threat alone has to deter invasion on our soil, IMO.

Boy, never thought I was going to go down this rabbit hole this morning!
 

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
Are you referring to Elliott Waves? Interesting theory, but we really don't have enough data to make much out of it other than common sense.

No, more like a societal pendulum. There is an analog in the business world with whatever handful of buzzwords from Harvard Business School and Wharton take over the ideology of the time. IBM had pushed remote offices at different points and called everyone back at different points. Certainly remote working has gained undeniable credibility, but when things go downhill the wonks get antsy and insist that the old way of doing things must be undone.

A prime example is the constant flirtations with "core competencies" versus "diversification." Investment bankers have cumulatively siphoned billions of dollars of productive capital out of huge businesses with that cycle, wave or pendulum. There will be a run where "you need to diversify in complementary business units" followed by "divesting non-core competencies." It's like freaking clockwork if you follow M&A and equity markets. Hell, when 2008 came around GE and GM were both among the 10 largest financial institutions when shit hit the fan. GM went bankrupt and GE spun out business units and had to do a reverse stock split. It was unfathomable in 1998 to think that in 10 short years GE would be brought to its knees because it was so diversified. It was unfathomable in 1989 to think GM would be thrust into bankruptcy in 2 decades. "Just buy GM and hold it forever."
 

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
I really have concern about China's influence in Mexico and possibly using that to infiltrate the US. They already are with the Cartel's and moving Fentanyl and other illegals drugs to the US. What could stop them from using Mexico to access our Southern border if a war were to happen.

If you look at the US or North America (US-Canada-Mexico) we have pretty good east and west border cushions with two huge oceans. The US is pretty difficult to attack militarily with Mexico as a cushion to our south and Canada for our Northern border. So, I think we in the US are a difficult country to attack and we have good neighbors. Again, my concern would be China being able to influence and/or infilt Mexico. Regardless, if either Canada or Mexico started to get infiltrated, that would give the US time to get the ducks in a row to defend ourselves.

Also, other countries would have to be very leery about coming onto US ground for a ground attack. We have a terrific military, but, our best defense may be that our citizens are armed. Just the shear numbers of people armed would make it difficult for an invasion from another country. People are on both sides of the gun control issue, but don't look past how the 2nd amendment in this country plays into us defending our country. Hope it never gets to that, but that threat alone has to deter invasion on our soil, IMO.

Boy, never thought I was going to go down this rabbit hole this morning!

China knows it is far more productive to buy off our politicians and have them slowly confer reliance and control onto China than it is to try to advance militarily directly against the US.

The US should annex Mexico at this point. If we annexed Mexico we could actually control the southern border because Mexico's southern border is tiny. We could turn Baja California into something amazing. We could eradicate their cartels. We could modernize its infrastructure and try to keep it a lower cost domestic manufacturing zone that could compete with China. It would be an absolute win-win situation for both countries.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
China knows it is far more productive to buy off our politicians and have them slowly confer reliance and control onto China than it is to try to advance militarily directly against the US.

The US should annex Mexico at this point. If we annexed Mexico we could actually control the southern border because Mexico's southern border is tiny. We could turn Baja California into something amazing. We could eradicate their cartels. We could modernize its infrastructure and try to keep it a lower cost domestic manufacturing zone that could compete with China. It would be an absolute win-win situation for both countries.
We can't eradicate cartels in the US much less Mexico.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
No, more like a societal pendulum. There is an analog in the business world with whatever handful of buzzwords from Harvard Business School and Wharton take over the ideology of the time. IBM had pushed remote offices at different points and called everyone back at different points. Certainly remote working has gained undeniable credibility, but when things go downhill the wonks get antsy and insist that the old way of doing things must be undone.

A prime example is the constant flirtations with "core competencies" versus "diversification." Investment bankers have cumulatively siphoned billions of dollars of productive capital out of huge businesses with that cycle, wave or pendulum. There will be a run where "you need to diversify in complementary business units" followed by "divesting non-core competencies." It's like freaking clockwork if you follow M&A and equity markets. Hell, when 2008 came around GE and GM were both among the 10 largest financial institutions when shit hit the fan. GM went bankrupt and GE spun out business units and had to do a reverse stock split. It was unfathomable in 1998 to think that in 10 short years GE would be brought to its knees because it was so diversified. It was unfathomable in 1989 to think GM would be thrust into bankruptcy in 2 decades. "Just buy GM and hold it forever."
I mentioned this before. The documentary "The China Hustle" is what you described on steroids and how US companies are merged with Chinese shadow companies and raided using derivitives. Byron Roth of Roth Capital is the main person being exposed in the video. Byron is an Iowa small town boy. It's an interesting watch. I knew Byron and his brothers who make up Roth Capital. Actually pretty nice guys in their younger years.

Perfectly legal. Insanely unethical for unsuspecting investors. Here is the link if you care to watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoVWIM_Lbuo
 

MelroseHawkins

Well-Known Member
China knows it is far more productive to buy off our politicians and have them slowly confer reliance and control onto China than it is to try to advance militarily directly against the US.

The US should annex Mexico at this point. If we annexed Mexico we could actually control the southern border because Mexico's southern border is tiny. We could turn Baja California into something amazing. We could eradicate their cartels. We could modernize its infrastructure and try to keep it a lower cost domestic manufacturing zone that could compete with China. It would be an absolute win-win situation for both countries.

I was just stating to a guy at work something very similar yesterday. I told him that the US needs to really, like you state, kind of become one with Mexico and really work with Mexico and Canada to become pretty much energy dependent. If we worked with Canada and became oil independent and not rely on the middle east (OPEC) and/or Russia, we could shut them off and they could have their shit show on their own terms.

Mexico is very important now because they may have the largest source of lithium which obviously is the future. Have US, Mexico and Canada get in cahoots with each other, build Mexico up and increase all militarily.

Becoming energy dependent on another country really fucks you over because they can either shut that shit down as OPEC did in the 70's or they can fuck you over economically just moving the goal posts. If North America was energy independent, we could do away with all that fucking collateral damage bullshit and we would be militarily strong. Also, we wouldn't have to try to mix our different theories on governments and religions. It would lessen that east vs west theory war.

If we say "fuck you, we don't need you Russia", that takes away their playing card and it could hurt their economy or exporting of energy. I mean, just the US supporting Israel in the 70's is what prompted the OPEC embargo. Get out of those fucking relationships and out of the cross hairs.

You become energy dependent and you start manufacturing shit in the US, especially necessities.
 
Last edited:

MelroseHawkins

Well-Known Member
We can't eradicate cartels in the US much less Mexico.

You could, but it would be a war. You could funnel them to certain areas in the infancy which could create safer places then deal with those pockets later.

For example, like Okeef states, clean up Baja California and make that a safer tourist destination and move the cartel out of there. They may not be gone but at least they could be moved to pockets which could be identified and monitored.
 

MelroseHawkins

Well-Known Member
Oh, several days ago I paid the most in my life to fill up my tank with gas as it was like $4.09 gal. I suspect tonight when I get gas it will be a new record!
 

racerhawk

Well-Known Member
I just want to say that I really appreciate this thread. I'm learning a thing or two.

I also wanted to comment on the 50 year old involuntary retirement. That's happened to my brother in law. Twice. The Bobs probably asked him "what is it that you think you do here?" and he didn't give a great answer about the TPS reports. "I'm a people person, goddam it!"

Personally, I'm riding the career wave (health care, hospitals) until I cannot anymore. I'm finally in a "C" level job at a major academic institution, and come into the hospital 5 days a week and I'm available on weekends. It can be rewarding work, and it's probably very stable, but given the state of our society and health care... it's exhausting. Our hospitals are 100% full every day. The pandemic, combined with the general decline of civility in our country has really been exhausting for health care workers, and now they have to deal with super angry patients who "did their research" and know more than experts. Our teams get hit, spat upon, and called names every day. Ok, end rant.

Anyone want to discuss retirement in Belize or other locations as a topic? :)
 

Latest posts

Top