Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (51054)	1/23/2006 7:04:49 PM
From: shades	Respond to of 110194

Yah Mish - these guys are only making a dollar - its no longer about wages like in the old days of America - its about financial assets. J Google's Page, Brin, Schmidt's Salary To Remain At $1>GOOG . WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Google Inc. (GOOG) said Monday that the salaries of its three celebrity founders - Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin, and Larry Page - will remain $1 each in 2006. The three leaders of the Mountain View, Calif., Internet search giant last year accepted for the first time the nominal $1 salaries. In a proxy filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Google said that Chief Executive Schmidt got a $81,432 salary in 2004, down from $250,000 in 2003, while President of Products Page and President of Technology Brin each got $43,750 for 2004, compared with $150,000 each in 2003. Schmidt, Brin and Page are worth billions of dollars as a result of their holdings of Google stock. -By Ed Welsch, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-1356; edward.welsch@dowjones.com

To: mishedlo who wrote (51054)	1/23/2006 9:53:57 PM
From: shades	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

I have no freaking idea what they are going to do to put a stop on rising medical expenses My old buddy in hawaii - Don Ho - showed those fuggers in the USA what they could do with thier religious beliefs and stem cell obstacles and FDA and medical ethics BS - hehe Jan 23, 8:13 PM EST Don Ho back on stage after procedure HONOLULU (AP) -- Hawaiian crooner Don Ho has returned to the stage, less than two months after undergoing a stem-cell procedure in Thailand to strengthen his heart. The 75-year-old Ho sang for 90 minutes before a Sunday-night sellout crowd of 300 people at the Ohana Waikiki Beachcomber Hotel. It was his first performance since Thanksgiving Day. On Dec. 6, Ho underwent a new treatment that hasn't been approved in the United States. It involves multiplying stem cells taken from his blood and injecting them into his heart in hopes of strengthening it. Wearing white pants, a blue velvet shirt and a white ginger lei, Ho sat behind an organ and kicked off a 10-song show with, "Night Life," followed by his signature tune "Tiny Bubbles." Joe Correa, a rancher who went to the show with his wife and some friends, said Ho was "sharp as a tack." "It was great to see him do what he does," Correa said. Jim and Linda Udell, visiting from Oregon, said this was the first time they had seen Ho since 1977. Documents Transcript of Interview with Trey Anastasio (PDF) Latest Music News Court: Williams' heirs own rights to show Don Ho back on stage after procedure 'Underworld' conquers weekend box office Swedish royals nix plans to attend opera Rosanne Cash pours emotion into new album Buy AP Photo Reprints "We came back to see the legend," Jim Udell said. Ho has entertained tourists for more than four decades and hosted the "The Don Ho Show" on ABC in 1976 and 1977. He has been suffering from heart problems for about a year. Ho had a pacemaker implanted a few months ago, but still felt weak and tired after a few steps. Before the surgery, he said, his heart was operating at only 25 percent. For now, Ho will perform on Sundays only. He said he may add more shows at a later date. © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

To: mishedlo who wrote (51054)	1/24/2006 2:18:02 AM
From: Yorikke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Another aspect of this problem is the inflationary cost of Education. The revolution of the Post WWII era that opened up higher education to the middle classes has ended. Doors are quickly closing in dollar terms if not simply as a matter of out right class exclusion. If you are on the bottom it is hard to even be able to afford to go to a junior college and work half time. Something most people 20 years ago took for granted. Now one has to become so indebted just to get a fair education that it is a major disability for years after the certificate or diploma is granted. And to add insult to injury most schools are cutting back on programs and seats into these programs; often making education an arduous process of kissing a succession of administrator asses just to get into a program. Public education has lost its support as the Boomers have aged and dragged all their 'just-for-me'isms into late middle age. I've recently gone back to school to pursue another career. I am shocked by what younger people now face. Quite frankly I can not see them paying for anyone’s retirement in the coming decades, as they are going to quietly refuse to honor already broken generational promises and opt to just pay off their excessive college loans.

To: mishedlo who wrote (51054)	1/24/2006 2:29:51 AM
From: GraceZ	Respond to of 110194

They break out incomes into quintiles, and then give a median for the individuals inside that quintile. It's relatively easy to look through ten to fifteen years of how those quintiles have changed over time. The quintiles don't contain equal numbers of people because they are composed of returns, not individuals. The top quintile is the quintile which contains the highest number of people. People typically move through the quintiles, most start out in the lowest, when they are most likely to be young and single then work their way through until after 55 or so they start working their way back down. While it is true that there is an enormous amount of wealth up at the very tippy top, the top 1 or 2% of reported income, this does not represent a large number of people. It does affect the average income of that top quintile as well as the entire universe of wage earners, but has much less effect on the median and minimum income needed to qualify for each quintile. Most people in the top quintile are simply dual income couples whereas the lowest quintile are usually single or single heads of household. As for me not being average, according to almost any income stats you can find, I'm about as average as you can get. My husband and I reside on the income scale exactly where the majority of other married, two income couples reside. Look at table 1: taxfoundation.org The top 20% is mostly composed of dual income couples and it comprises the largest number of individual tax payers at 40.9% of all tax payers, 61.8% of the returns in this quintile are dual income couples. It starts at $71k which if you divide by two isn't exactly what most Americans would call rich, they'd say it was pretty damn average for two individuals in their peak earning years. This is where we fit in, at the bottom of that quintile. But both of us spent time when we were single in the lowest, the second, third and forth after we got married. Very few people, less than 1% of those in the lowest quintile stay there during their entire career. The US has great income mobility. The numbers of bankruptcies and levels of debt suggest otherwise. I posted a chart just the other day that showed that BK was equal or higher as a percentage of households back in 1999. Back in 1994, a year which can be characterized as a low point in debt accumulation and negative consumer credit growth was the year in which BK started to accelerate. Rising credit or debt is not an indicator of incomes that aren't growing it is an indicator that people have the confidence that their future incomes will be high enough to cover the cost of the interest or they believe they will be paying off that debt with cheaper dollars. So far, in the last 30 years, that bet has been pretty damn safe. Ask anyone who is still paying a mortgage from 25-30 years ago what the monthly P&I payment is and then cry. 3) People simply refuse to save and furthermore buy way more of everything than they can afford from SUVs to houses. SUVs are particularly stupid as they will eventually be worth zero over time. So how can you account for small time savings deposits at historical highs? Think Warren is putting it all in passbook? 5) Leverage - people are way over leveraged Some people are way over leveraged, but certainly not the majority considering 40% of houses are owned free and clear, another 25% have greater than 50% equity. The ones that are leveraged up the whazoo have taken a short dollar/long RE position. The judge is still out to whether they will win that bet, so far they are. The RE speculators will wash out like they always do, so what else is new? but people eat out too much in addition to just plain eating too much Can't argue with that.... unless you happen to own a restaurant like my brother-in-law, he thinks they are eating out less frequently. Maybe they eat out more because they feel rich!