CHICAGO | General Discussions

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

I dont begrudge anyone for having careers or finding success in life (although I tend to when the success is the result of predatory or economically exploitative actions). Im also not really interested in anecdotal stories of bootstraps and gumption by top 5%'ers in this country, as if timing and luck dont play equal roles. If you're at that level guess what, statistically nearly everyone you pass on the street is worse off than you are, and your story is not somehow the norm. We only tend to hear from the winners in our economic system, and as a result it distorts the way people perceive the way the system really works, or the way the odds are actually stacked. Its pure propaganda fed to the working class to keep them docile and in-line because "one day this could be you!" We're not hearing from the losers or the people who had their only homes foreclosed on during the financial crisis (forget owning investments) just so that other people could swoop in and ride massive profits a decade later. Where is their voice represented in all of this? Wheres the voice of the people who came from similar circumstances as your own and never got out? Its disingenuous of you to say "most people would not work as hard as I work" when there is a huge working/poverty class in our country that puts in insanely grueling hours at multiple jobs and sacrifices to their health simply to put food on the table. Who have seen their earnings hold stagnant for decades and their purchasing power drop, while at the same time the social safety net is systematically dismantled by the rich and powerful (and who have the opportunity to re-write the rules to favor themselves) who then have the audacity to tell them "you just need try harder". Does falling ass backwards into some rental properties that just so happened to hugely appreciate at the time you owned them, give a person the right to swagger through some of the poorest neighborhoods of the city in a leisure suit and a swinging dick acting like they hold all the answers regarding success in this country because they are fortunate enough to be landowners? Is that "contribution" to society somehow greater than that of people in countless other lines of work making infinitesimally less? Is a neighborhood the physical buildings themselves, or the people who inhabit them? Because I see a genuine lack of concern or empathy regarding the people for whom "the dream" never materializes. A shred of humbleness and self awareness dosent hurt but I guess a person who dosent possess it cant really display it.

But yea, dang, if only the family making minimum wage could have just scooped up that investment property for 650k, maybe everything would be different in their lives.

So I have him figured out, he doesn't have a chip on his shoulders, he's just one of those kids who was told there was a boogeyman under his bed who never had the gumption or bothered to actually get out of bed and look underneath to see if there was actually something there.

Here's the deal, you obviously haven't tried it. You haven't tried to make money buying property on a low income, you don't know what it's like. I know you don't want anecdotes, but just on one block in Little Village I know half a dozen people who DID it. Where do you think I came from myself? Do you think daddy just wrote me a six figure check to play with?

No, I started off with $50k in student loan debt, a $38k/year job (which I was lucky to even have since it was 2010), and saved up my first $5,000 which I used as a downpayment on a $135k two flat just outside of Logan Square. I busted ass 40 hours a week at my job and worked 30 or 40 more hours a week renovating my apartments until 1 or 2 AM every night. Yeah, I got lucky with timing, but I also had the balls to actually jump in when everyone else was running away as fast as they could. Yeah I got lucky getting a job right away, but I also found a job in college before shit hit the fan and busted ass working 20-30+ hours a week the entire time I was in college so I actually had some experience. Yeah I happened to know a bit about real estate, but I got my brokers license while I was still in school and made my interest in RE my passion.

Just on my block in Little Village there's myself, who started on that block with a 6 flat I literally got for free from a bank (again, not screwing anyone here except the bank who had already taken it back from a negligent wannabe developer who started a gut rehab to turn a 6 flat into an illegal 10 flat with no permits) by putting my head on the demo court chopping block, my neighbor who grew up at 21st and Damen (and by the way his Mexican immigrant dad bought the 5 unit that he grew up in and was very successful with it himself despite no education and empty pockets upon arrival here) who owns two two flats on the block that he managed to buy for $30k and $50k on a bank teller's wage, and another neighbor who is older, but doesn't speak a word of English and has managed to accumulate 9 rental properties and spent the money on a 10th property which is a nice house in Oak Park that he moved his family to for the good schools.

That's one block, three different people from different backgrounds who all pulled off what you say is impossible, starting with nothing but low wage jobs and building up to multiple rental properties. An immigrant, a second generation American, and a multi generational American. It's not impossible, it's only impossible if you don't want to try. In fact, you say we aren't aware of our luck or the help we get, but guess what, I'm very aware that I couldn't have done what I did without a boost from an FHA loan, but guess what, that same boost is available to literally everyone here. The only difference is that I decided to take that boost and not to be afraid in 2010 and Via apparently didn't.


Finally, you go on and on about people taking advantage of others. Who was taken advantage of? These homes were already lost to the bank? What did I have to do with that? I just came along and cleaned up the mess. It's ironic that you decry the average family not being able to afford to pick up a $650k 24 unit building, but have you any idea how deranged that is? That's why the last mess happened, a lot of people were able to buy stuff that they couldn't afford or shouldn't have been allowed to own. If a poor family on a minimum wage just jumped in and bought a 24 unit building would you really be surprised if they lost it a few years later? No, you don't just jump in like that, you need to start small. That 24 unit building was $27k/unit. That means a 2 or 3 flat, maybe even a 4 flat, could have been had for less than $100k. With an FHA loan that means a downpayment of less than $5k. Oh and you can count the income from the building you are buying as your own on an FHA loan so don't tell me "they won't qualify". All you need is W2 income and a semi decent credit score (540+). You don't start out buying 24 unit buildings, that's absurd and, frankly, fucking stupid. The fact that you are trying to use that as some sort of knock against TUP just shows that you are one of the boneheads who pushed for the lax regulations and subsidies that led to the crash. It's probably a good thing you aren't in this business yourself because who knows what trouble you would have gotten yourself into by now with that line of thinking.

[Via Chicago]

It's ironic that you decry the average family not being able to afford to pick up a $650k 24 unit building, but have you any idea how deranged that is?

I'm not sure I could have laid on the sarcasm any heavier.

The point is, plenty of people work hard in life, and regardless of whether they do so flying cross country every week to tend to investments or getting up at 3AM to bake bread every morning for minimum wage, or teaching kids science, the economic rewards for each are vastly different. Some of the most noble careers in life pay very very little. Bragging about 6-7 figure real estate investment returns (which is more or less a form of gambling) when 60% of the country has less than 1000 in savings (and seniors are declaring bankruptcy is increasingly record numbers is really not a good look and displays a lack of appreciation for what the situation really is for the vast majority of our peers in this country. The recovery has perhaps come for you several times over, but many are still hanging out in the cold. And I'm the one advocating for irresponsible behavior? Dude, you're the one who appeared in a video titled "Little Village - Real Estate Gold Mine". What kind of message does that send to people, that you're framing A) a poor neighborhood as some sort of "gold mine" to be harvested, and B) real estate investment as some sort of sure thing/can't loose proposition? I don't think I'm the one channeling a go-go 80s "greed is good" philosophy here

[the urban politician]

Going from poor to middle class in America is easy. It’s one of the easiest things in the world to do.

Become rich is obviously hard, and it takes work, luck, or a combination of both.

But I’m not shedding tears. Go to India (as I have many times)—them are some really fucking impoverished people who I genuinely feel deep sorrow for. But in America? Just a bunch of whining

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by left of center

That said, the economy is still doing quite well at the moment, as is justified by the Fed's consistent and frequent rate hikes and historically low unemployment rate. It won't last of course, and I'm sure a recession isn't too far off. The next 12 to 18 months could likely see a rapid slowing of quarterly GDP growth.

You are way overthinking things here. We don't need to go back 60 years or compare to completely different economies (older, less mature, oligarch-run). The following things should never occur together, yet we are seeing them right now:

• Historically low unemployment - 3.9%
• Strong economic growth - 4.1%
• Stagnant real wages - 0.1%, YoY growth
• Stagnant laborforce participation rates - 62.9%, same as December 2013

Something is fundamentally wrong with the economy. If unemployment is low, the economy is growing and the laborforce is expanding; why aren't wages growing? There is no answer for this and the implications are very bad. It implies that nearly all of the growth is going to owners of capital rather than laborers. I worry about the implications of that in the long-term.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ Or it means the economy is coming up with new ways to put workers to better use. For example, uber, instacart, etc. I use the example of my sister who just graduated from PA school and had a job that started 4 months after her graduation. Instead of sitting on her ass for 4 months or trying to find some sort of a part time gig that was fine with her disappearing after 4 months, she did Instacart. That's labor slack that didn't exist previously and it's entirely possible that slack such as that exists throughout the economy and we are slowly pulling it tight. Another example is Uber, how many single parents struggled through a second job or even tried to hold down a first job at a minimum wage establishment only to keep having issues because of other obligations in their life (i.e. 3 or 4 kids or something like that)? Well all of the sudden you have gigs like Uber where, yeah you can just turn your job off to go get the kids without being fired. That job might pay the same overall as McDonalds, but the flexibility adds real value to that single parent's life.

Finally, there may just be an issue with the way we measure things like wages given the radical shifts in the economy since 2008. Do you really think our economic models have kept up with things like Uber? Is it really that easy to measure all these suddenly decentralized businesses? What about the fact that something like Uber cannibalizes a formerly more lucrative career like cab driving? Sure people might be quitting McDonalds to drive Uber, but that's destroying higher paying jobs at a Cab company and holding down overall wage growth.

There is no scenario where "the rich" can just hold down wage gains by having some sort of handshake agreement not to give raises. At some point you run out of workers and wages will go up, that's not a question. It just might be that we've entered a new era of economics where the natural rate of unemployment has fallen slightly because of innovations like the gig economy. Perhaps the economy can employ more people before wage inflation kicks in because there's more flexible roles out there like Instacart that turn my sister, as highly educated and productive of a member of society as she supposedly is, into a worker for 4 months where she would otherwise be sitting on her hands. Think of how many people around the country might be picking up shifts on similar apps, probably hundreds of thousands or millions of workers, that certainly moves the needle. Economics is simply never as cut and dry as "this one statistic so everything". Yes real wages were essentially flat last month, but they've been showing signs of life over the last 24 months. There are too many moving parts for you to say "well every other economic indicator is positive, but this one indicator isn't therefore there's a huge problem"...


PS: as we've said a dozen times, stop harping on the participation rate because it literally does not mean what you think it does. Are you going to cop to having spouted that nonsense about "women joining the workforce" causing the participation rate to increase starting in the late 1960's or are you going to acknowledge that the baby boom seriously skewed that stat?

[Skyguy_7]

^^ I don't trust that YoY wage data.

In the construction industry, wages are indeed going up. There is more overtime work available than ever because we cannot fully man the projects because there is a shortage of workers. Therefore, their wages have gone up. Way up. Low wage "driver" and non-union laborer jobs which go to 18-25 year old kids, are up to $15/hr, when they were at $12/hr just a few years ago. I attribute that increase to competition like Uber and Lift and fast food industry, where $15/hr is becoming common. There's a general shortage of workers. When there is a shortage, companies will pay more to keep the people they have, otherwise, they'll jump ship.

Lastly, to your other concern, I want owners of capital to experience as much growth and have as much money as possible. What do they do with that money? They invest it in the construction of new facilities or into new businesses, thus employing MORE people.

EDIT: High five to a fellow free-thinker, LVDW. Posted essentially the same thing at same time.

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Going from poor to middle class in America is easy. It’s one of the easiest things in the world to do.

this statement is completely out of sync with reality

At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent)—a country famous for its class constraints. Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes. Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

PS: as we've said a dozen times, stop harping on the participation rate because it literally does not mean what you think it does. Are you going to cop to having spouted that nonsense about "women joining the workforce" causing the participation rate to increase starting in the late 1960's or are you going to acknowledge that the baby boom seriously skewed that stat?

You seem generally knowledgeable on this forum, but in this case you are mistaken (and rude). From the BLS:

• The labor force participation rate of men has been decreasing since the 1950s, having registered 86.4 percent in 1950, 79.7 percent in 1970, 76.4 percent in 1990, and 73.3 percent in 2005.

• Women’s labor force participation, which was at a rate of 33.9 percent in 1950, increased significantly during the 1970s and 1980s, climbing to 57.5 percent in 1990. In 1999, the women’s participation rate reached a peak of 60 percent.

Please tell me more about my nonsense and things I don't understand.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

^^ I don't trust that YoY wage data.

Then provide something that refutes it or really any data to back up your position. Just ignoring data that disagrees with you isn't being a "free thinker". It's the exact opposite.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

The point is, plenty of people work hard in life, and regardless of whether they do so flying cross country every week to tend to investments or getting up at 3AM to bake bread every morning for minimum wage, or teaching kids science, the economic rewards for each are vastly different. Some of the most noble careers in life pay very very little.

And has anyone on this forum been ripping on bakers? No, the only profession being attacked here is real estate developers and landlords. Which, for the record, is not a glamorous career (no matter what HGTV says) and is a very noble one of providing housing for others. Also, I know plenty of teachers (3 of my wive's siblings are) who have invested in real estate, it's not mutually exclusive and that's exactly the point. If you want to invest in real estate in the USA you can, it's exceedingly easy to get started even at a low wage. Anyone who wants to complain that other's are making money doing so needs to acknowledge that they simply haven't tried it themselves, because you could very easily do it and that's a fact plain and simple.

Bragging about 6-7 figure real estate investment returns (which is more or less a form of gambling) when 60% of the country has less than 1000 in savings (and seniors are declaring bankruptcy is increasingly record numbers is really not a good look and displays a lack of appreciation for what the situation really is for the vast majority of our peers in this country.

Again, is it really inappropriate to talk about real estate investments on what is essentially the most active real estate related forum in Chicago? No one here is gloating about seniors going bankrupt, they are pointing out the facts that no, downzoning doesn't "hurt greedy developers" and no, it won't lower housing prices. People are simply pointing out that the only way to actually lower housing prices long term is to increase supply and that's what we, the evil greedy developers, are doing.

Dude, you're the one who appeared in a video titled "Little Village - Real Estate Gold Mine". What kind of message does that send to people, that you're framing A) a poor neighborhood as some sort of "gold mine" to be harvested, and B) real estate investment as some sort of sure thing/can't loose proposition? I don't think I'm the one channeling a go-go 80s "greed is good" philosophy here

First of all, I have my issues with the guy who made that video, it was sold to me as educational and he edited a douchey spin on the whole thing. But yes, we did intend to highlight the investment potential of Little Village. Why? Because, whether you like the tone he used or not, there is a lot of "underutilized" property there. Most people who got bitchy about that video were hollering just as you are: "OMG LV ISN'T UNDERUTILIZED! COLONIZER, THERE ARE PEOPLE LIVING HERE ALREADY".

Well guess what, there wasn't anyone living in any of the buildings I've renovated down there except one squatter who set fire to one of the buildings I ended up buying and caused a neighboring building that was occupied with 3 families to go vacant. THAT is displacement. The fact that there were 12 units of abandoned housing on that block is displacement. The two vacant lots I got that used to have 2 flats on them is displacement.

Disinvestment is displacement

The Economist article I posted in City Discussions is correct, poverty is already a high displacement condition. The first building I bought on that block went vacant because a gang banger threw a molotov cocktail through the stairwell window to chase a rival gangbanger out. The other two buildings I bought went vacant because no one had invested a dime in them for 130 years. The building next to those two caught fire because the neighboring building was left to rot for 10-15 years and vacant buildings are a hazard. These are stories that have been told many many times over in Little Village. I'm about to buy another 6 unit down on the same block that is 50% vacant because the rear units were left to rot and the storefront, again, was burned by some punk kids shuttering the business. So you have a handful of people, at least one of which I know is a heroin addict because I see him buying it, living in a half abandoned building. Tell me wise sage, is that safe for anyone involved? Or am I evil for pushing a handful of people out of a building that is basically a death trap?

That article is right that redevelopment is the ONLY remedy for these problems. Look at what effect I had:

1. Giant six unit building on the corner was left vacant and unsecured by the bank. Was at one point home to multiple vagrants. Was being used as a party house by the local deuces gang (which no longer exists partly because I deprived them of their meeting spots). I bought it and restored 6 units of housing to the market. I "undisplaced" those six vacant units and removed a serious hazard and blight in the process.

2. I bought another 6 vacant units in two buildings which had already burned (again displacing 3 more units next door which were occupied) and restored them to habitable condition. Creating six more units on that block. Oh and this one was also being used as a deuces party house, deuces "2" tags all over the interior and marijuana plants growing in pots in the windows.

3. I'm about to renovate six more units only three of which have anyone living in them at all (again, this building is the site of constant drug activity now) which will "displace" 3 units, but end up adding 6 new units back to the market when done.

So let's look at the scoreboard: I add 18 units of renovated housing to the market. I displace 3 units so net I add 15 units of housing that was simply uninhabitable before. The fact that these units were vacant so long resulted in 3 more units being destroyed, had I gotten to the blighted buildings sooner that would never have happened. Overall the footprint of my "gentrification" on this block is 18 additional units of housing at the cost of 3 units in what is currently a death trap being vacated.

So is that "80's gogo greed" or is that noble? Is that helping the affordable housing shortage or is it hurting? Is Little Village under utilized or is it the perfect place to bring vacant housing back online to house more people?

You tell me...

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

this statement is completely out of sync with reality

If you broke the United States down into states you would find that many states are right up there with the European socialist paradises. If you compared the EU as a whole to the US, I'm willing to bet the elasticity is WAY better in the US. I tried finding this stat for the EU as a whole but it doesn't appear to exist. There are probably also states in the US where the elasticity is comparable to some former Soviet Bloc Eastern European countries with a litany of ongoing problems. It's almost as if comparing ethnically pure countries with a population of 5 million to the center of global immigration with a population of 330 million+ spread over an entire continent isn't a valid comparison...

[10023]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

You are way overthinking things here. We don't need to go back 60 years or compare to completely different economies (older, less mature, oligarch-run). The following things should never occur together, yet we are seeing them right now:

• Historically low unemployment - 3.9%
• Strong economic growth - 4.1%
• Stagnant real wages - 0.1%, YoY growth
• Stagnant laborforce participation rates - 62.9%, same as December 2013

Something is fundamentally wrong with the economy. If unemployment is low, the economy is growing and the laborforce is expanding; why aren't wages growing? There is no answer for this and the implications are very bad. It implies that nearly all of the growth is going to owners of capital rather than laborers. I worry about the implications of that in the long-term.

That’s probably due in part to the fact that human labor’s share of income is shifting toward algorithms and intelligent machines that are increasingly doing the “work” (and of course these machines have owners). Get used to it.

It’s also partly due to the fact that the share of global income going to workers in the developing world is increasing, relative to workers in the developed world. Get used to that was well.

Basically, with advancements in technology and transportation (itself a form of technology), the price of labor isn’t simply driven by demand for and available supply of human labor. There are two substitutable inputs - machines and foreign labor. Wages won’t go up to the extent that it becomes more expensive than investing in automation. It’s already pretty clear that a $15 minimum wage would eliminate tens of thousands of fast food jobs, for instance - at that level, touchscreen ordering kiosks and burger-flipping robots become more cost efficient.

There has always been an element of this, at least since the Industrial Revolution, but you still needed weavers to run the looms. And it’s not a hypothetical either. In India, they still have human beings crushing rocks to make concrete, despite having the technology, because the economy is so inefficient and labor is so cheap that it doesn’t make sense to invest in machines. In Switzerland, you already order from a kiosk at McDonald’s and there are a lot fewer employees than in an American location.

Point is, I don’t think this should be mistaken for a temporary blip. Especially as more and more human jobs become possible to automate. This isn’t just manual labor - trading jobs are disappearing on Wall Street, too.

[Baronvonellis]

I'd like to get into an investment such as you describe. How did you know that the first $135k two flat just outside of Logan Square would be profitable, after spending money to renovate it?
When you say you spent 30 hours a week renovating it, how did you learn how to renovate an apartment building to proper code? Were you physically doing electrical work, plumbing work, installing windows, and chopping lumber? Or did you hire laborers?

[the urban politician]

Damn, you guys just aren't capable of not continuing off topic discussions on a thread, are you?

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Going from poor to middle class in America is easy. It’s one of the easiest things in the world to do.

One of the easiest things in the world? All poor people in the US must be lazy dumbasses then.

I grant you, yes, it's possible and easier than some other places in the world. But the fact that it doesn't happen all the time is empirical proof that it's not as easy as you think.

It definitely feels better to wash yourself clean of any potential negative externalities of your actions though. I know I do that every time I fly. Now THAT is one of the easiest things in the world to do.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

If you broke the United States down into states you would find that many states are right up there with the European socialist paradises. If you compared the EU as a whole to the US, I'm willing to bet the elasticity is WAY better in the US. I tried finding this stat for the EU as a whole but it doesn't appear to exist. There are probably also states in the US where the elasticity is comparable to some former Soviet Bloc Eastern European countries with a litany of ongoing problems. It's almost as if comparing ethnically pure countries with a population of 5 million to the center of global immigration with a population of 330 million+ spread over an entire continent isn't a valid comparison...

Exactly, that comparison is garbage.

Plus, too many Americans at the bottom aren't even trying. I see them every day--my patients, who are practically all lower income. One after another after another able bodied people who want me to fill disability benefit and handicapped placard paperwork for them even though they truly don't qualify. I still fill them out--every single time.

I'm guessing I don't have any exposure to this population, though, and I live in a "bubble" right?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

One of the easiest things in the world? All poor people in the US must be lazy dumbasses then.
.

^ Many are lazy, yes. Obviously not all, or even most.

I see them every day. I spend hours a day talking to them about their lives. I actually help them, too, but it pisses me off how our system gets taken advantage of. I certainly have more direct and personal access to this population than most people of my economic background.

[Notyrview]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The Democrats are now the party of Free trade, I find it hilarious that people continue to cling to the notion that the "Brand Name" of their political party is correct. Hate to break it to you, but the Democrats are picking your pocket just as much as the GOP is today. I know the Democrats say "WE LOVE POOR PEOPLE TM", but actions speak louder than words.

I'm sure you will have some snarky complaints about Trump or something like that, but look no further than Chicago which has been ruled by the Dems for 70 years and left giant swaths of the city behind with nary an attempt to correct that mess.

Oh lord, please don't normalize Trump. He is NOT NORMAL. He is like no corrupt Democrat or Republican we've seen EVER. He colluded with a foreign power to win an election. He is a sexual predator who supports other sexual predators for office. He equates neo-nazis with protestors. He doesn't believe in the rule of law or the free press. Not normal. And not snarky. SCARY.

Otherwise, I couldn't agree more that Democrats have lost all credibility after Clinton, and racism in both parties has left behind people of color. What the Democratic party needs is a progressive wave to purge the neoliberals and replace them with defenders of social justice and stewards of planet earth.

"Loving the poor" is really just giving people the opportunity to get ahead with some basic essentials - affordable health care and college and equal opportunity under the law. Upward mobility is in fact the cornerstone of liberal democracy.

Since Reagan cut the highest marginal tax rate from 70% to 50% in 1981, and then to 28% by 1987(!), that cornerstone has eroded. So far from picking pockets, the GOP has actually sacrificed the public good for wealthy interests.

Whenever we drop the highest marginal tax rate and deregulate Wall Street, we witness massive inequality followed by some great economic shock: Great Depression, recession of early 90s, and the Great Recession. These were not natural corrections - they were a direct result of plutocratic policies - and so too is the rise of Trumpian fascism.

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

I'm not sure I could have laid on the sarcasm any heavier.

The point is, plenty of people work hard in life, and regardless of whether they do so flying cross country every week to tend to investments or getting up at 3AM to bake bread every morning for minimum wage, or teaching kids science, the economic rewards for each are vastly different. Some of the most noble careers in life pay very very little. Bragging about 6-7 figure real estate investment returns (which is more or less a form of gambling) when 60% of the country has less than 1000 in savings (and seniors are declaring bankruptcy is increasingly record numbers is really not a good look and displays a lack of appreciation for what the situation really is for the vast majority of our peers in this country. The recovery has perhaps come for you several times over, but many are still hanging out in the cold. And I'm the one advocating for irresponsible behavior? Dude, you're the one who appeared in a video titled "Little Village - Real Estate Gold Mine". What kind of message does that send to people, that you're framing A) a poor neighborhood as some sort of "gold mine" to be harvested, and B) real estate investment as some sort of sure thing/can't loose proposition? I don't think I'm the one channeling a go-go 80s "greed is good" philosophy here

You're never going to have a system where anyone who has the desire and drive is guaranteed success. Some will win, some will fall flat on their face. On that we can agreed.

But I find it frustrating that you sort of discount and trivialize the experiences of us forumers who have done well for ourselves as random anecdotes. The simple fact is, most of the people I know that aren't 1%'s still do ok for themselves. But they chose professions and walks of life that were known to not be particularly lucrative. Whereas those of us who did climb into the top 1% made different life choices, and getting there was excruciatingly hard. And there was no guarantee of success.

Just like TUP, I became a doctor. On Friday nights when everyone else was chasing women, inhaling beer bongs, and generally dicking around and having fun, I sequestered myself in the library to study Organic chemistry. Every time I walked into a test, I felt like my life depended on it, and even getting a B+ would completely ruin my chances of getting into medical school. The thought of being ordinary was simply unacceptable. And here's the thing. Even after 14 years of college, medical school, internship, residency, and fellowship, it's not like I cashed in my golden ticket and was given a pile of cash. I still work my ass off, doing a complicated job where people lives depend on the care I provide.

But since you previously talked about Chicago public teachers, I'll tell you another story. My brother was a high school teacher in South Holland for a long time. And I will tell you, his college experience was very different than mine. He pretty much coasted on a beer keg throughout college. Smoking pot, screwing his girlfriend, and skipping class; taking 5 years to graduate from the University of Iowa with a C+ average. And in the end, he was still making something like 90k a year. Putting in a fraction of the effort I did.

Don't discount our personal stories as irrelevant anecdotes. Most people in the 1% are here because of life choices, intellect, hard work, and self reliance. If we don't achieve one of our goals, we blame ourselves. Unlike you, who always seems to blame the system. Those of us who made something of ourselves don't look at the system as a roadblock. We see it as a construct to be learned and channeled.

[Skyguy_7]

^Any Mods wanna mod that outburst?

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Then provide something that refutes it or really any data to back up your position. Just ignoring data that disagrees with you isn't being a "free thinker". It's the exact opposite.

I didn’t ignore anything. My entire post was “something that refutes” the YoY data. Real world experience. Discount it if you wish.