Record numbers go hungry in the US

ninky_2

ThrowingStonesAtYou wrote: »

How many home owners were in the US in 1929 and how many home owners were in the US in 2009? Without these statistics you can't make any meaningful judgement on the basis of respossessions.

looks like it was just under half the population compared to 2 in 3 in modern day america.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html

that difference doesn't explain the vast numbers now being repossessed.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Indeed, the fact that homeownership is so much higher in the US now compared to before the Great Depression is a sure sign that capitalism has worked.

so how do you explain the decline from 1900 to 1920? or the fact that no state has reached the level of home ownership recorded in 1900 in dakota (80 percent?)

bendix

Significantly lower populations. It's easy to have 80% homeownership stats, when four of the only five people in the state own the log hut they live in.

ThrowingStonesAtYou

ninky wrote: »

looks like it was just under half the population compared to 2 in 3 in modern day america.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html

that difference doesn't explain the vast numbers now being repossessed.

According to this link:

http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/popclockest.txt

The US population has near enough trebled since 1929 (if you remember a while ago it was mentioned the population had recently reached 300 million), so a rough calculation suggests there are 3.5 times as many US home owners now as in 1929 - the other thing that should be taken into account is how the repossessions were spread in the depression - were they evenly distributed, or did they have one or two really bad years comparable to this year?

EDIT: I also would have thought that the population per household would be higher in 1929, and there are more single or couple with no kids households these days, which would boost the relative number of owner occupied households today. I haven't looked this up but I think it's likely.

lostinrates

iolanthe07 wrote: »

If you are unremarkable but good and committed student in UK further education is available, in US, go whistle.

This isn't true at all. My son attended what they call a Community College (not what we mean by that here) for the first part of his degree. Lots of students don't go on from there, but end up with perfectly respectable Associate Degrees that can land them good jobs in law enforcement, fire fighting, para legal and para medical. You just need motivation, as here. This was entirely free, paid for by the State of California.

Are all US state community college free?

As I understand it this is equivlent, roughly to an HND here? And it is still not possible, without scholarship, to get a bachelors free...is this still true?

I would infact argue that in many states School age free/public eduction is better than the equivalent in UK.

bendix

There is one area where ninky is right though. The mass repossessions to point to a failure of the American system in one regard, but she and i would disagree on who is responsible.

She will say it has been caused by people borrowing too much, and will blame the banks for lax lending policies. I will say it's been caused by people borrowing too much, and blame the borrowers for living beyond their means and being personally irresponsible.

But that of course is the fundamental debate of our time, applying to all aspects of our life and economy.

In this thread, are people obese because they are manipulated by advertising and manufacturers getting them hooked on fats and sugars, or are they obese because they are lazy, don't exercise and eat too much of the wrong foods when healthier options are cheaper, more available but - scandalously - might take more effort to prepare than getting a dial-in?

You decide.

bendix

lostinrates wrote: »

Are all US state community college free?

As I understand it this is equivlent, roughly to an HND here? And it is still not possible, without scholarship, to get a bachelors free...is this still true?

I would infact argue that in many states School age free/public eduction is better than the equivalent in UK.

You can get degrees at community colleges also.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Significantly lower populations. It's easy to have 80% homeownership stats, when four of the only five people in the state own the log hut they live in.

and exactly how has capitalism contibuted to keeping populations at a level that allows high home ownership?

bendix

ninky wrote: »

and exactly how has capitalism contibuted to keeping populations at a level that allows high home ownership?

By being the economic system that truly generates wealth to the level that growing populations can be sustained and, indeed, their overall quality of life enhanced. More money and wealth equals more people chasing more wealth meaning more innovation meaning more wealth meaning more people . . ad infinitum.

By being the economic system of choice in the democratic free world, a world which - including America - has been a beacon for tens of millions of people from poorer countries and countries where capitalism has been abolished desperately trying to flee those countries.

It's simple when you think about it, isn't it?

Capitalism isn't perfect, as Winston Churchill said, but it's less imperfect than the alternatives.

StevieJ

bendix wrote: »

There is one area where ninky is right though. The mass repossessions to point to a failure of the American system in one regard, but she and i would disagree on who is responsible.

She will say it has been caused by people borrowing too much, and will blame the banks for lax lending policies. I will say it's been caused by people borrowing too much, and blame the borrowers for living beyond their means and being personally irresponsible.

But that of course is the fundamental debate of our time, applying to all aspects of our life and economy.

In this thread, are people obese because they are manipulated by advertising and manufacturers getting them hooked on fats and sugars, or are they obese because they are lazy, don't exercise and eat too much of the wrong foods when healthier options are cheaper, more available but - scandalously - might take more effort to prepare than getting a dial-in?

You decide.

Or shark like sales people fraudulently persuading vulnerable people to sign up to loans they could ill afford so they could earn outrageous commission , you know the type :eek:

Part of the backdrop here is dismayingly familiar. Explosive growth of subprime lending created perverse incentives that led to fraudulently inflated loan terms. What's less known is that some of these loans were priced higher based on the race of the borrower, with African-Americans and Latinos paying more, in secret, behind-the-scenes deals. Some of this activity will even turn out to have been criminal. There are more than 1,500 open FBI investigations into mortgage fraud, much of it concentrated in the subprime market.

http://www.slate.com/id/2205264